Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

Necessity of Swift Action Against Habitual Offenders - Detention Order Upheld Despite Delay in Execution: High Court of Delhi Affirms Preventive Detention  under PITNDPS Act

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the High Court of Delhi upheld the preventive detention order against Naushad Ali under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (PITNDPS Act), rejecting his petition challenging the order.

The court focused on the legality of the preventive detention order issued under Section 3(1) of the PITNDPS Act. Despite the delay in executing the detention order, the court held that the detention was justified based on substantial evidence against Ali for trafficking narcotics and psychotropic substances.

Naushad Ali, proprietor of Shaad Medical Store and Kenway Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., was detained under the PITNDPS Act for his involvement in illicit drug trafficking. Ali challenged the detention order dated February 25, 2022, citing delays in execution and alleged violations of procedural norms.

The court meticulously examined the case, noting, “The grievous nature and gravity of offences committed by Naushad Ali in a well-planned manner clearly establishes his continued propensity and inclination to engage in such acts of prejudicial activities.” The court observed that Ali’s evasion from law enforcement contributed to the delay in executing the detention order and did not vitiate the purpose of the detention laws.

The court also noted that Ali was ”rovi’ed with the detention order and grounds while in custody, offering him a fair opportunity to challenge the detention. The representation to the Advisory Board was recognized as adequate for ensuring his rights under Article 22 of the Constitution.

The court concluded that the detention order was necessary and justified based on the evidence and Ali’s conduct. The petition and the pending application were dismissed, affirming the need to immobilize Ali to prevent him from engaging in illicit drug trafficking.

Date of Decision: February 20, 2024.

Naushad Ali Through Perokar Sahajad Ali vs. UOI & ORS.

 

Latest Legal News