Disposed

Station House Officer , Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala ,Ernakulam v. Praveen Raj, S/O Rajan

Kerala HC5 Mar 2024WP(Crl.)/264/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

State challenged a Sessions Court refusal to execute a PITNDPS detention order. The High Court held Sections 4 and 5 of the PITNDPS Act permit execution per CrPC procedure and transfer of the detenu to a notified Central Prison. Impugned order set aside; Sessions Judge directed to reconsider afresh.

What the court decided

AI extract

Station House Officer , Represented by Public Prosecutor… — Narcotics (NDPS) | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 5^TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 15TH PHALGUNA, 1945

¶7

WP(CRL.) NO. 264 OF 2024

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16.02.2024 IN CRMP 1067/2024 IN SC (NDPS) NO.498/020 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - V, PALAKKAD/IV ADDITIONAL MACT, PALAKKAD

¶9

---------

¶10

PETITIONER:

¶11

STATION HOUSE OFFICER, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM POOCHAKKAL POLICE STATION, PIN – 688526.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.K.A.ANAS

¶13

RESPONDENT:

¶14

PRAVEEN RAJ, S/O. RAJAN, AGED 36 YEARS KOTTIYALIL HOUSE, PANAVALLY P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA, PIN – 688566.

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

W.P.(Crl.) No.264/2024 2

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

A. Muhamed Mustaque, J.

¶19

The Station House Officer, Poochakkal Police Station, is before us in this writ petition(criminal) challenging Ext.P3 order of the Sessions Court, Palakkad in Crl.M.P.No.1067/2024 in S.C.No.498/2020 dated 16.02.2024.

¶20

An attempt was made to execute a detention order passed under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (for short, 'PITNDPS' Act). The Sessions Court refused to execute the order for the reason that, the execution of the detention order by shifting a detenu from one jail to another jail would amount to forfeiture of bail conditions and also the detention order does not state that the accused has to be arrested. We understand this was based on a misplaced understanding of law. The law is clear as

¶21

W.P.(Crl.) No.264/2024 3

¶22

referrable under Sections 4 and 5 of PITNDPS Act. Section 4 states that a detention order may be executed at any place in the manner provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 5 states as follows:

¶23

“Section 5: Power to regulate place and conditions of detention : Every person in respect of whom a detention order has been made shall be liable:-

¶24

(a) to be detained in such place and under such conditions including conditions as to maintenance, interviews of communication with others, discipline and punishment for breaches of discipline, as the appropriate Government may, by general or special order specify ; and

¶25

(b) to be removed from one place of detention to another place of detention, whether within the same State or in another State by order of the appropriate Government.”

¶26

The Government had notified certain jails for the

¶27

purpose of detaining persons against whom the detention order has been passed under the PITNDPS Act. As seen

¶28

W.P.(Crl.) No.264/2024 4

¶29

from notification, such person has to be detained in Central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram. This being a notified jail and no other place, such person can be detained. The execution of the detention order is following the procedure prescribed under law. Mere shifting of the detenu from one jail to another jail will not obliterate the efficacy of judicial custody of such detenu, the detenu being an accused will have to be produced as and when the Sessions Court directed to do so. The detention order need not state the arrest of such person. The detention order once is passed, the execution will have to be followed, following the procedure under the Code of Criminal Procedure. In such circumstances, the impugned order is set aside.

¶30

In the light of the above, we direct the Sessions Judge, Palakkad to reconsider the matter afresh within a period of two weeks. If the accused is represented by the

¶31

W.P.(Crl.) No.264/2024 5

¶32

counsel, notice shall be given to the counsel by the Sessions Court. If the accused is not represented by the counsel, the defence counsel shall be entrusted with this matter and appropriate order shall be passed by the Sessions Court, within the time granted as above.

¶33

The writ petition (Criminal) is disposed of as above.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶36

JUDGE

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN JUDGE

¶39

¶40

W.P.(Crl.) No.264/2024 6

¶41

APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 264/2024

¶42

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶43

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. HOME-SSA1/979/2023HOME DATED 09-02-2024.

¶44

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION BEFORE THE LEARNED SESSIONS JUDGE - IV , PALAKKAD DATED 12-02-2024 FOR OBTAINING PERMISSION TO EXECUTE THE DETENTION ORDER.

¶45

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 1602-2024 IN CRL.MP NO. 1067/2024 IN SC NO.498/2020 OF THE COURT OF SESSIONS DIVISION, PALAKKAD.

¶46

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE GAZETT NOTIFICATION DATED 23-09-1988.

Station House Officer , Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala ,Ernakulam v. Praveen Raj, S/O Rajan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Station House Officer , Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala ,Ernakulam v. Praveen Raj, S/O Rajan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Avvamada Sarommabi(Died) Vs Avvammada Pathummabi (Died)

Manath Hajarommabi, Vs Avvammada Sarommabi

Maneth Hajarommabi, Vs Avammada Pathummabi

Suchithra V.S Vs State of Kerala

Elizabeth Lee Jacob Vs State of Kerala

Karuppuswami Vs State of Kerala