MP High Court Awards ₹10 Lakh Compensation To Businessman Detained For 57 Days Over Spices Mistaken For Narcotics
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has directed the State to pay ₹10 Lakh in compensation to a businessman who was detained for 57 days after airport security equipment mistakenly identified his packets of branded Aamchur and Garam Masala powders as containing heroin and MDEA. The bench of Justice Deepak Khot observed; "...because of the lethargy and not having the standard laboratories in...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has directed the State to pay ₹10 Lakh in compensation to a businessman who was detained for 57 days after airport security equipment mistakenly identified his packets of branded Aamchur and Garam Masala powders as containing heroin and MDEA.
The bench of Justice Deepak Khot observed;
"...because of the lethargy and not having the standard laboratories in the State of M.P., the petitioner had to suffer incarceration for 57 days... Therefore, applying the principle of the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex court finding it to be most suitable case for illegal confinement, infringing the fundamental right of life and liberty of the petitioner, this court finds it appropriate to award compensation to the tune of Rs.10 Lacs to the petitioner, Ajay Singh, who remained in custody for 57 days, to be paid by the State Govt. within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order".
The petitioner filed a petition seeking directions against respondent no 2 (Director, Airport Authority of India), respondent no 3 (Sub Area Manager, Raja Bhoj Airport) and respondent no 4 (Deputy Commandant, CISF) to install proper machines for the purpose of detection of contrabands and explosive substances.
Per the case, the petitioner, who was a businessman, was stopped during a routine security checkup at Bhopal Airport while leaving for Delhi. The ETD machine, while scanning the baggage, showed that the packets of branded Aamchur powder and branded Garam Masala powder of 750 grams contained 1-4% heroine and 10% of MDEA (Mytheylene Dioxym N-Ethylamphetamine) respectively.
The petitioner was arrested on the spot by CISF, and the packets were sent for chemical examination. An FIR was lodged against the petitioner under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1881, in the Police Station of Gandhi Nagar, Bhopal. Further, the packets were sent to the Regional Forensic Laboratory.
The counsel for the petitioner argued that respondent no 6 (Joint Director General of the Regional Forensic Laboratory) made a delay in testing the seized goods and returned the samples after 10 days. Thereafter, the samples were sent to the Central Forensic Laboratory in Hyderabad due to a lack of facilities for testing MDEA.
Per the CFL report, no contraband substance was found in the seized samples, and therefore, the petitioner was released on personal bond after suffering incarceration for 57 days. The petitioner was thereafter released on bail by the Special Judge, NDPS Act.
The counsel for the petitioner contended that the ETD machine works on principles of Ion Mobility Spectrometry and tests aroma/effervescence, and since it is manufactured in Canada, it is not calibrated to test aromatic Indian spices.
The petitioner further contended that the petitioner suffered harassment, mental agony and tremendous pain and therefore, strict action be taken against erring officials and that proper and authentic machines be installed with SOPs.
The counsel for the Airport Authority argued that the Airport authority s responsible for procurement and maintenance of ETDs, but other agencies like CISF and airline operators are responsible for operation and further actions.
The counsel for the State contended that there was no alleged malice against State officials and that there was a procedural delay in sending the samples to the Central Forensic Laboratory for which State officials should not be condemned.
The court noted that while the petitioner was flying from Bhopal to Delhi, the X-ray machine found a packet in his pocket containing orange color powder. Upon query, the petitioner informed that it was garam masala. It was reported that after checking it in the ETD machine, the packet may have contained heroin or MEDA, which are prohibited NDPS substances.
Later, the scientist of the FSL mobile unit, upon non-identification of the material as contraband, orally instructed the samples to be forwarded to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory. The RFSL sent the sample back to be forwarded to CFSL.
The court noted that the report should have more weight than the ETD result and, therefore, based on the final report, the petitioner was absolved. The court further noted that the manufacturer of the ETD machine has installed the same with a clear stipulation that the percentage rate of its giving false alarms is less than 2%.
Therefore, the bench held that the company that had claimed that it was final proof of substance, it is only indicative in nature. The court held,
"The authorities are required to deal the matter absolutely in accordance with law and the strict protocols of contraband or any prohibited material found in possession of any person at the airport. Therefore, the Company is not liable for any action or orders by this court".
The court further highlighted that the provision of CrPC/BNSS provides that criminal prosecution may be initiated for malicious prosecution or confinement. The bench noted that a person is required to be suitably compensated for infringement of the fundamental right to life of a citizen by a public servant, and the State is vicariously liable for their acts.
The bench emphasized that, "The object is to apply a balm to the wounds and not to punish the transgressor or the offender, as awarding appropriate punishment for the offence (irrespective of compensation) must be left to the criminal courts in which the offender is prosecuted, which the State, in law, is the duty bound to do".
The court noted that the arrest was made with reasonable apprehension, but also noted that the person could have been released within a short period of time if the State had been equipped with proper chemical examination.
The court observed that this matter had been pending since 2011 and that too on grounds of technicality, and therefore did not want to relegate the petitioner to avail a civil remedy. The court, though, granted him liberty to file an appropriate case. Therefore, the court granted him ₹10 lakh as compensation.
Case Title: Ajay Singh v State of Madhya Pradesh, WP-17529-2011
For Petitioner: Senior Advocate Ajay Gupta with Advocate Rajeev Mishra
For State: Government Advocate Sumit Raghuwanshi
For Airport Authority of India: Senior Advocate Anoop Nair with Advocate Divyani Singh
For CISF: Advocate Manhar Dixit
For Tender Company: Senior Advocate Shashank Verma with Advocates Aditi Shrivastava, Shankh Sen Gupta, Soham Banerjee and Nishi Bhankaria