Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
Power to make orders detaining certain persons.-(I) The Central Government or a State Government, or any officer of the Central Government, not below the rank of a Joint Secretary to that Government, specially empowered for the purposes of this section by that Government, or any officer of a State Government, not below the rank of a Secretary to that Government, specially empowered for the purposes of this section by that Government, may, if satisfied, with respect to any person (including a foreigner) that, with a view to preventing him from engaging in illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, it is necessary so to do, make an order directing that such person be detained. (2) When any order of detention is made by a State Government or by an officer empowered by a State Government, the State Government shall, within ten days, forward to the Central Government a report in respect of the order. (3) For the purposes of clause (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution, the communication to a person detained in pursuance of a detention order of the grounds on which the order has been made shall be made as soon as may be after the detention, but ordinarily not later than five days, and in exceptional circumstances and for reasons to be recorded in writing, not later than fifteen days, from the date of detention. The Prevention of Illicit Traffic in N.D.P.S Act, 1988 COMMENTS 97 (i) It is wrong to suggest that any person in age group of 17 or so cannot be a courier engaged in illicit traffic of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances; Parve::: Quadar Khan v. Union of India, 1990 Cr LJ 2072 (All). (ii) The order of detention is illegal when it is passed on the basis of a solitary activity of the detenu; Parve::: Quadar Khan v. Union of India, 1990 Cr L1 2072 (All). (iii) The question of prejudice does not arise for non-supply of the documents to detenu where bail application and order thereon was not considered by detaining authority in coming to his subjective satisfaction and impugned order; Syed Farooq Mohammad v. Union of India, 1990 Cr L.J 1622 (SC) (iv) Since the detenue intentionally absconded and evading arrest it cannot be held that delay was not explained and link between grounds of detention had been snapped; Syed Farooq Mohammad v. Union of India, 1990 Cr L1 1622 (SC). (v) The detention is valid when detaining authority is con~<ious of rejection of bail application of detenu and antecedents showing that detenu amassed huge wealth by drug trafficking within short span; Smt. A:::ra Fatima v. Union of India, 1990 Cr LJ 1731 (SC). (vi) It is settled law that prejudice due to non-supply of documents not referred to or relied upon will have to be established, and if it is not done, it docs not in any manner prejudice the detenu for making a representation; Mahar v. Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, 1994 Cr L1 1407