9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (10) TMI 173X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order by the State Government of Gujarat. It therefore cannot be said that the order of detention was not passed by the competent authority. Appeal allowed. - Criminal Appeal No. 93 of 1981 - - - Dated:- 23-10-1981 - ISLAM, BAHARUL AND SEN, A.P., JJ . For the Appellant : J. L. Nain and R. N. Poddar For the Respondent : O. P. Rana, A. C. JUDGMENT BAHARUL ISLAM, J. This appeal by special leave is by the State of Gujarat and is directed against the judgment and order of the Gujarat High Court quashing the order of detention passed by the H appellant against respondent, Ismail Juma. The respondent was detained by the appellant in exercise of powers conferred on it by Sub-section (I) of Section 3 of the Conservation of For ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad Central Prison. This order was dated August 1, 1979 (Annexure B ). There was another order of the same date passed under sub-section (I) of Section 3 of the Act which in fact was the order of detention which ran as follows: "Whereas the Government of Gujarat is satisfied with respect to the person known as Shri Ismail Juma Tangan alias Bando residing at Balapar, Beyt (Okha), Distt. Jamnagar that, with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods, it is necessary so to do; Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, the Government of Gujarat hereby directs that the said A Shri lsmail Jumma Tang ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on record only for the purpose of seeing whether the order of detention has been based on no material. The satisfaction mentioned in Section 3 of the Act is the satisfaction of the detaining authority and not of the Court. The reason is that the satisfaction of the detaining authority is subjective. Additionally it appears from the affidavit filed by the Deputy Secretary (referred to in greater detail herein below) that the entire record was carefully considered by the Home Minister concerned before the order of detention was passed. 5. Mr. Rana appearing as Amicus Curiae for the respondent raised a preliminary objection before us. The same preliminary objection was raised in State of Gujarat v. Adam Kasam Bhaya (supra), namely, that i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ernment, specially empowered for the purposes of this section by that Government. The argument was that the order was signed by the Deputy Secretary (Shri P. M. Shah) and he was not one of the authorities mentioned in Sub-section (I) of Section 3 of the Act. This appeal came up for hearing on an earlier occasion but after being heard in part was adjourned to enable the counsel of the appellant to satisfy the Court as to who actually passed the order of detention. In pursuance of that order of this Court, an affidavit has been filed by Shri P. M. Shah aforesaid. It has been stated in the affidavit that the entire record was placed before the Home Minister who "after careful consideration of the entire record has passed the impugned order o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
