9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Wrongful invocation of Section 123 of the Customs Act. 2. Denial of assistance of counsel. 3. Derivation of two different satisfactions by the Detaining Authority. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Wrongful Invocation of Section 123 of the Customs Act The petitioner asserted that the order of detention was made without proper application of mind, particularly in relation to Section 123 of the Customs Act, which casts the burden of proof on the person from whose possession the goods were seized. The learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the gold biscuits were seized from Praveen Kumar Shetty, not from the detenu, and the detenu never claimed ownership of the seized gold. Therefore, the provisions of Section 123 could not be invoked to fasten the burden of proof on the detenu. The court found merit in this argument, noting that the Detaining Authority's assumption that the detenu was responsible for proving the gold biscuits were not smuggled was erroneous. The gold was seized from Praveen Kumar Shetty, and the detenu was not present at the time of seizure. Thus, the Detaining Authority failed to apply his mind to the relevant facts, rendering para-9 of the grounds of detention patently erroneous. Issue 2: Denial of Assistance of Counsel The petitioner contended that the detenu was denied the assistance of counsel despite repeated requests, violating Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. However, since the court found the detention order vitiated on the first ground, it did not find it necessary to discuss this contention in detail. Issue 3: Derivation of Two Different Satisfactions by the Detaining Authority The petitioner argued that the Detaining Authority derived two different satisfactions as could be seen from para-10 of the grounds of detention. The court observed that the satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority was a result of a cumulative consideration of the detenu's statement, follow-up actions, and retraction. The satisfaction did not rest on any one fact in isolation. The court emphasized that the subjective satisfaction required for preventive detention must be preceded by an objective approach. The Detaining Authority's failure to apply his mind to the vital facts of the case meant that the subjective satisfaction was not genuine. Conclusion The court concluded that the core of the grounds of detention, read with the basic facts, clearly established that the Detaining Authority did not apply his mind and missed the real facts involved in the case. Consequently, the alleged subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority could not be upheld as a justification for the detention under preventive detention law. The petition was allowed, and the order of detention dated 8th October 1988 was quashed. The detenu was ordered to be released forthwith.
|
