9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (6) TMI 241X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act LII of 1974), hereinafter referred to as the said Act . 2. Shri Kotwal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Detenu, has canvassed only one submission before us challenging the Order of Detention. Shri Kotwal pointed out that, in the instant case, the Detenu was arrested on 3-1-1986 and soon thereafter the residential premises of the Detenu at his native place were searched by the Customs Authorities. However, nothing incriminating was recovered. According to Shri Kotwal this Panchanama, although it is termed as nil Panchanama , was a vital and material document which was likely to have affected the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority one way or the other. According to learned Counsel, it was incumbent upon the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... retary to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department, Special, Bombay (Criminal Writ Petition No. 7 of 1987), decided by Qazi and Lonoy, JJ., on 6-4-1987, in which case a similar situation arose. The learned Judges were pleased to observe :- From the affidavit it is quite clear that the challenge which is raised in para 11(a) has not at all been replied to. It is obviously evasive. The challenge which is raised is that the Authorities had searched the residential premises of the petitioner in the presence of panches and it was discovered that nothing incriminating was found therein. Therefore, for submissions are that this circumstance should have been placed by the Sponsoring Authority before the Detaining Authority. To this, there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting was found in the house of the petitioner, despite the suspicions of the Customs Authorities to the contrary, was, in our opinion, a vital fact. Since it was not placed before the detaining authority, the order of detention must be said to have been vitiated on that account." 7. In the instant case, as we have pointed out earlier, the Sponsoring Authority had failed to place the Panchanama in which it was shown that nothing incriminating was discovered from the residence of the Detenu. We consider this Panchanama to be a vital document which would have materially influenced the Detaining Authority in arriving at his subjective satisfaction whether or not to issue the Order of Detention. The argument that a nil Panchanama is of no cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
