news details |
|
|
| HC quashes PSA of two | | | EARLY TIMES REPORT
SRINAGAR, May 1: Justice Sanjeev Kumar of J&K High Court while deciding two different petitions, quashed the detention order of Gulzar Ahmad Parray and Rayees Ahmad Hakak who were booked by the administration under preventive detention.
In the petition filed by Rayees Ahmad Hakak seeking quashment of detention order bearing No DIVCOM-“K”133/2020 dated 19.05.2020 (the impugned order) issued by Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir (the detaining authority), whereby petitioner has been put under preventive detention with a view to preventing him from committing any act within the meaning of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and for maintenance of public order.
Justice Sanjeev Kumar after hearing both the sides observed that the order of detention does not survive the judicial scrutiny for more than one reason.
From the grounds of detention, it transpires that the opinion of the detaining authority clearly oscillates between the activities of the detenue relating to illicit trafficking of drugs and those having potential of disturbing public order. FIR No.113/2018 and FIR No.02/2019, which find reference in the grounds of detention, pertain to the offences under NDPS Act and, therefore, if the petitioner was to be detained with a view to preventing him from indulging in illicit trafficking of drugs, there is a separate legislation in place i.e. the Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988, which provides for preventive detention in such matters. Admittedly, the detaining authority has not decided to proceed under the aforesaid Act and may be it did not find sufficient material to derive subjective satisfaction that the activities of the petitioner are such that unless he is placed under preventive detention, it would not be possible to deter him from indulging in the activities of illicit drug trafficking.
In another petition filed by Ghulam Rasool Parray challenging his detention ordered by District Magistrate, Budgam (the detaining authority) vide its order No.DMB/PSA/03 of 2020 dated 27.01.2020 (the impugned order). In terms of the impugned order aforesaid, the petitioner has been put under preventive detention with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State.
Justice Sanjeev Kumar after hearing both the sides observed that the detention of the petitioner is not sustainable in law for more than one reason. From perusal of grounds of detention, it clearly transpires that the petitioner has been put under preventive detention primarily for his involvement in two FIRs i.e. FIR No.131/2004 and FIR No.49/2019. So far as FIR No.131/2004 is concerned, the petitioner has placed on record judgment of acquittal dated 21st of February, 2009, passed by Sessions Judge, Budgam. Apart from the fact that the allegations contained in FIR registered in the year 2004 are too stale to establish any proximate link with his detention, the detaining authority has shown complete ignorance that the petitioner stood acquitted in the aforesaid FIR on 21st of February, 2009.
And if we assumed that it was within the notice of the detaining authority and the same was ignored, it would speak volume about the non-application of mind of the detaining authority. For both these reasons, withholding of this relevant information from the detaining authority and its non-consideration vitiates the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority and, therefore, renders the impugned order of detention unsustainable in law. (JNF)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
