9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (7) TMI 256X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nment of Maharashtra, Home Department, by order dated April 11, 1988 passed in exercise of powers under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 directed detention of the petitioner with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods. The order was served on April 16, 1988 and grounds of detention were furnished. 2. Briefly the grounds ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rwarded an unaccompanied baggage to Bombay. Aziz Zaveri was also desirous of sending some goods to Bombay and promised that those goods would be packed with the air-conditioner. On the strength of the statement of the detenu, Aziz Zaveri was also contacted and searched but nothing incriminating was found. On the strength of this material, the detaining authority passed the impugned order of detent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s released on bail by the Metropolitan Magistrate. Now, the impugned order was passed on April 11,1988 that is after about ten months, and though it is true that the delay ipso facto is not fatal to the order of detention, it is necessary that the detaining authority must give reasonable explanation for such delay. The detaining authority has filed return and paragraph 5 recites that the statement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ces the conclusion is inescapable that the order of detention is passed after a considerable delay and there is no reasonable explanation for the same. On this ground the order of detention is required to be set aside. 4. Accordingly, rule is made absolute and the impugned order of detention is quashed. The detenu is directed to be released forthwith. There will be no order as to costs. - - T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
