9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (12) TMI 500X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The detenu landed at Anna International Airport, Chennai, on 28-2-2002. He was carrying two checked in baggages and one hand bag. He was carrying a declaration chit which suggested that he was declaring that the goods worth a lakh of rupees. He was allegedly intercepted and on examination of the baggage, it was found that he was carrying the goods worth 19 lakhs of rupees approximately. His statement was recorded where he claimed that one unknown person has given the goods and he was a receiver of Rs. 5,000 for taking the goods to India. He has also agreed that he was caught twice and the goods were ordered to be released on payment of redemption fine and penalty also. The detenu was then lodged in the jail and the further investigation b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the Advisory Board, as also before the State Government, at the time of confirmation of that detention order. The learned counsel suggests that the letter directed to be put before the Advisory Board as also before the State Government at the stage of section 8( f ) of the Act was a very material document and was bound to be considered before the decision was taken.That not having been done, the learned counsel suggests that the order is vitiated. 6. We were taken through the state counter. This question was raised by the petitioner in paragraph 5( iv ) of the affidavit, by way of counter. The State Government admits in the following terms: "I submit that the said retraction letter sent through the jail authorities was received by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ound to be considered by the detaining authority. There may be a mistake or may not be a mistake and the mistake may not be a deliberate one, but could be an innocuous mistake also. However, the fact of the matter is that a very important letter, which would have affected the psyche of the detaining authority, was not considered by the detaining authority and the detaining authority did not have before it the side of the detenu, in which the detenu had pleaded that he was in fact not guilty of smuggling. If this is so, there would be no question of going further and the order would stand vitiated on this ground alone. 8. We have seen the letter which has been produced before us by the learned counsel and there is no dispute that it is t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
