Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 420 (PAT)

Manoj Kumar Gupta v. State of Bihar

2003-04-10

B.N.P.SINGH, S.N.JHA

body2003
JUDGMENT S.N. JHA and B.N.P. SINGH, JJ. The petitioner has been detained under section-3(1) of the Prevention of illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 by the State Government, Vide memo no. 2198 dated 4.9.2002, Home (Special) Department. The detention order along with grounds of detention was served on the petitioner on 30.9.2002. The petitioner made representation on 4.10.2002. After the Advisory Board concurred in the order on 5.12.2002, the detention was confirmed and the same was communicated to the petitioner on 28.12.2002. The representation filed by the petitioner on 4.10.2002 remained unconsidered. In the affidavit, vide paragraph 7, the Department has taken a stand that the representation was not received in the Department till date. 2. A doubt arose, when the case was taken up yesterday, as to whether the petitioner had in fact filed representation as claimed by him, or not The State Counsel was directed to take instruction from the Superintendent, Adarsh Central Jail, Beur, where the petitioner is lodged. Today when the case was taken up, an affidavit sworn by Shri Balmohan Naik, Superintendent, Adarsh Central Jail, Beur, was filed to the effect that the petitioner did file representation against the detention on 4.10.2002. As per the affidavit, the representation was forwarded to the I.G. (Prison) Bihar vide memo no. 3035 dated 5.10.2002 with a request to forward it to the Secretary, Home (Special) Department, to whom it was addressed. Going by affidavit of the Department, it is obvious that the representation was never forwarded by the office of the I.G. (Prison) to the Home (Special) Department. 3. Expeditious consideration of the representation is valuable right guaranteed to the detenu under the provisions of respective detention law as also under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India which in the instant case, has been denied to the petitioner. It is rather a case of total non-consideration, and therefore, it is plain that detention of the petitioner has to be struck down on this ground alone. 4. The detention order dated 4.9.2002 along with consequential order confirming the same is accordingly quashed and the petitioner is directed to be set free forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. The petition stands allowed accordingly. 5. Before we part with this case we may express our anguish at the manner in which representation of the petitioner remained unconsidered. The detention order dated 4.9.2002 along with consequential order confirming the same is accordingly quashed and the petitioner is directed to be set free forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. The petition stands allowed accordingly. 5. Before we part with this case we may express our anguish at the manner in which representation of the petitioner remained unconsidered. Firstly, the Superintendent, Central Jail should not have forwarded it to the log. Prisons The representation was addressed to the Secretary, Home (Special) Department, as stipulated in the detention order and therefore, the same should have been straightaway sent to the Secretary, Home Department which is the consistent practice followed by the authorities of different Jails in the State of Bihar. It is, therefore, understandable as to how in the instant case representation of the petitioner was sent to the I.G. Prisons instead. Secondly, it is beyond our comprehension that the representation of the petitioner remained stuck up in the office of the log, Prisons. The representation was meant to be considered by the Home (Special) Department. The same was addressed to the Secretary, Home (Spl.) Department and, therefore, it was none of the business of the log Prisons or his office to sit over the representation resulting in not only denial of valuable rigl1t of the petitioner but also quashing of the impugned order on that ground alone. 6. We are of the view that the circumstances in which the representation of the petitioner was sent to log. Prisons and, in turn, not forwarded to the Home (Special) Department, may be inquired into by the Secretary, Home Department, and suitable action be taken against the person(s) concerned. 7. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Secretary, Home Department for the needful.