1 2025:CGHC:4515 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRMP No.3402 of 2024 Bedi Prasad Tiwari S/o Shri Late Jivan Lal Aged About 63 Years R/o Village Darrighat, Police Station- Masturi, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus Superintendent Of Police Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Mr. Syed AH Rizvi, Advocate with Mr. K. K. Khatri, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, PL. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 24.01.2025 1. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 528 of BNSS 2023 for quashment of the order dated 21.11.2024 passed by the respondent- Authority. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this petition is that SHO of the Police Station-Masturi wrote a letter to the respondent/SP, Bilaspur for taking action against the petitioner under the NDPS Act on the ground that he has been continuously indulging himself in selling the illicit Contraband (ganja) and in this regard various crime has been registered against him in the concerned Police Stations. The Police of PS-Masturi has arrested the present petitioner/accused under Section 20(B) of NDPS Act in 1 / 4 2 Crime No.287/2010 in the year 2010 and charge-sheet has been filed before the concerned Court on 11.09.2010. Thereafter again the Police of PS-Masturi registered the case against the petitioner/accused under Section 20(B) of the NDPS Act on 22nd May 2011 and charge-sheet was filed before the concerned Court on 28th June 2011. Subsequently, again on 09.02.2023, PS -Masturi has registered the case against the present petitioner/accused in Crime No.70/2023 under Section 20(B) of the NDPS Act and recovered the illicit Contraband (ganja) from him. The respondent/SP, Bilaspur has filed the Istagasa (bearing No.2 ब-121 year 2024) before the Detention Officer, to which, Detention Officer/Commissioner, Bilaspur, (CG) has issued show-cause-notice to the petitioner on 20.09.2024 and, thereafter, passed the impugned order dated 21.11.2024 under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988, (for short, ‘Act of 1988’). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the earlier crime/offence regarding NDPS Act petitioner/accused has been acquitted by the concerned Authority/Court. He further contended that on the basis of Istagasa filed by respondent/SP, the respondent/Commissioner has passed impugned order ignoring the quantity of contraband (ganja) seized from the petitioner/accused and without examining any independent witness, which is contrary to the law. Hence, it is prayed that impugned order be set-aside. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel supported the impugned order and opposes the contention made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 2 / 4 3 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the impugned order alongwith documents/material annexed with the writ petition. 6. Perusal of record would show that on 09.02.2023, PS -Masturi has registered the case against the present petitioner/accused in Crime No.70/2023 under Section 20(B) of the NDPS Act and seized about 2 kg of illicit Contraband (ganja) from him. The respondent/SP, Bilaspur has filed the Istagasa (bearing No.2 ब-121 year 2024) before the Detention Officer, to which, Detention Officer/Commissioner, Bilaspur, (CG) has issued show-cause-notice to the petitioner on 20.09.2024 and, thereafter, passed the impugned order dated 21.11.2024. 7. For ready reference, Section 10 of the Act of 1988 reads as under: “10. Cases in which and circumstances under which persons may be detained for periods longer than three months without obtaining the opinion of Advisory Board. — (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any person (including a foreigner) in respect of whom an order of detention is made under this Act at any time before the [31st day of July, 1999], may be detained without obtaining, in accordance with the provisions of sub-clause (a) of clause (4) of article 22 of the Constitution, the opinion of an Advisory Board for a period longer than three months but not exceeding six months from the date of his detention, where the order of detention has been made against such person with a view to preventing him from engaging in traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, and the Central Government or any officer of the Central Government, not 3 / 4 4 below the rank of an Additional Secretary to that Government, specially empowered for the purposes of this section by that Government, is satisfied that such person engages or is likely to engage in illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances into, out of, through or within any area highly vulnerable to such illicit traffic and makes a declaration to that effect within five weeks of the detention of such person.” 8. The Detention Officer/Commissioner on the basis of the report submitted by the Police against the petitioner/accused has satisfied that petitioner engages or is likely to engage in illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances into, out of, through or within any area highly vulnerable to such illicit traffic and makes a declaration to that effect within three months detention of the petitioner. 9. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, pleadings made in the petition, submissions of counsel for the respective parties, particularly Sections 3 & 10 of the Act of 1988, this Court is the considered opinion that impugned order dated 21.11.2024 passed by the respondent/Commissioner is neither perverse nor contrary to the facts of the case and, therefore, there is no need to interference in the impugned order. 10. Accordingly, the present petition being devoid of merits is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge J/- 4 / 4