news details |
|
|
| DB uphold PSA of narco smuggler | | | Early Times Report
JAMMU, Aug 8: A Division Bench of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court Comprising Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Puneet Gupta uphold the detention of Gourav Khajuria an alleged Narco-Smuggler.
DB after hearing AAG Amit Gupta appearing for the UT, observed that it cannot be said that there was no basis for forming a subjective opinion that the appellant if not detained would not pose a threat to the well-being of society. There is one fact that distinguishes detention under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 from other detention laws. For detention under this Act, the sense of anxiety and seriousness on the part of the State is far greater than what is under other preventive detention statutes. All preventive detention statutes cannot be placed on the same pedestal when it comes to ascertain "subjective satisfaction" of the detaining authority. While far greater material and evidence may be required to form a subjective satisfaction under other detention laws, the requirement and degree of evidence in material required to form a subjective satisfaction under this Act may be far lesser depending upon the circumstances. In other words, no rule of thumb can ever be laid down as to how much material would be sufficient to form subjective satisfaction for detention under this Act. From the examination of facts of this case, it cannot be said that the material before the police and the detaining authority were inadequate to form a subjective satisfaction with regard to the detention of the appellant herein. Also, the Court cannot lay down as to what constitutes substantive satisfaction in order to displace what is arrived at by the detaining authority. However, by caution this Court would like to say that the same does not mean that this Court cannot examine and evaluate the material on the basis of which the detaining authority had formed its subjective satisfaction. The order of detention does not require any interference of this Court. This Court is of the opinion that the material placed before the detaining authority was not so feeble and desolate that a reasonable man could not form the subjective satisfaction under the special Act to detain the detenue.
With these observations, DB found no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Single Judge and the appeal was dismissed. —JNF |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
