9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved
1. Paucity of time for the detaining authority to consider the material before passing the detention order. 2. Unexplained delay in issuing the detention orders. 3. Absence of any prejudicial act or omission by the detenus after the initial incident. 4. Sufficiency of material for detaining Sajid Ahmed. Detailed Analysis Issue 1: Paucity of Time The petitioners argued that the detaining authority did not have sufficient time to consider the voluminous material (2301 pages) before issuing the detention orders on September 3, 1996. They claimed this indicated non-application of mind, rendering the orders illegal. The Court examined the affidavits and found that the material was received from time to time, starting from April 18, 1996, and the detaining authority had ample time to peruse and consider the documents. The Court noted that the process of considering the material was ongoing and not confined to a single day. The Court referred to several precedents, including *Tarapada De v. State of West Bengal* and *A.K. Gopalan v. Government of India*, which supported the view that the authorities had sufficient time to apply their minds. The Court concluded that there was no non-application of mind and rejected the contention of paucity of time. Issue 2: Unexplained Delay The petitioners contended that there was an unexplained delay between the main incident on November 27, 1995, and the issuance of the detention orders on September 3, 1996. The Court examined the affidavits and found that the investigation involved complex foreign exchange transactions, requiring extensive correspondence with various authorities and individuals. The Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in *Rajendrakumar Natvarlal Shah v. State of Gujarat*, which emphasized that delay in such cases is often unavoidable due to the nature of the investigation. The Court found that the delay was satisfactorily explained and that the nexus between the incident and the detention order was maintained. The contention of unexplained delay was thus rejected. Issue 3: Absence of Prejudicial Act or Omission The petitioners argued that there was no prejudicial act or omission by the detenus after the initial incident on November 27, 1995, which would justify the detention orders. The Court noted that the detaining authority had recorded its subjective satisfaction based on the continuous and organized nature of the foreign exchange racket. The Court emphasized that preventive detention is based on a reasonable prognosis of future conduct, not necessarily on recent acts. The Court found that the detaining authority's satisfaction was based on substantial material and that the orders were justified. This contention was also rejected. Issue 4: Sufficiency of Material for Detaining Sajid Ahmed The petitioners questioned the sufficiency of the material for detaining Sajid Ahmed. The Court reviewed the role of Sajid Ahmed in preparing bogus and fabricated Basic Travel Quota (BTQ) forms and found that there was ample material to justify the detention. The Court reiterated that it is not for the judiciary to sit in judgment over the sufficiency of material when the detaining authority has recorded its subjective satisfaction. This contention was thus rejected. Conclusion The Court found no merit in any of the contentions raised by the petitioners. The issues of paucity of time, unexplained delay, absence of prejudicial acts, and sufficiency of material were all addressed and found to be satisfactorily explained or justified by the detaining authority. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed, and the rule in both petitions was discharged.
|
