AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
15 paragraphs · 242 wordsA. Muhamed Mustaque, J.
The petitioner is the mother of the detenu. Invoking provisions under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (PIT NDPS), the detenu has been detained for a period of one year.
The following four crimes were relied on, for passing the detention order:
Sl. Police Station Crime No. Date of Occurrence
No.
1 Thadiyittaparambu 228/2022 25.03.2022
Police Station
2 Thadiyittaparambu 191/2022 14.03.2022
Police Station
3 Kalamassery Police 1666/2021 13.11.2021
Station
4 Viyyur Police Station 548/2011 08.06.2011
As seen from the impugned order, the last prejudicial activity was on 25.03.2022. The sponsoring authority submitted its report on 25.10.2022. The detention order was passed only on 25.07.2023.
We find that there is a delay of more than five months in submitting the report by the sponsoring authority. Thereafter, the sponsoring authority took another nine months for passing the detention order. It is a serious lapse in this matter in taking prompt action. The purpose of the detention order is to prevent commission of the offences and it cannot be used as a penal provision. The delay is also not explained. According to us, the live-link between the last prejudicial activity and the detention order has been snapped. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order. The detenu shall be released forthwith, provided, if he is not otherwise required in any other case under law.
This W.P.Crl. is disposed of as above.