9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (2) TMI 334X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng authority and therefore, there was no occasion for the detaining authority to apply its mind to the relevant material. In the circumstances, the appellant is entitled to be released. The appeal is allowed and the appellant is directed to be set at liberty forthwith. - CRL.A. 129 OF 1986 - - - Dated:- 11-2-1986 - REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA AND KHALID, V. , JJ. JUDGMENT O. Chinnappa Reddy, J. 1. Special leave granted. 2. SItaram Somani is under detention pursuant to an order dated June 4, 1985 made by the State of Rajasthan under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of smuggling Activities Act, 1974. Earlier, on 1st January, 1985, the officers of the Customs Department recovered eight foreign ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was no application of mind by the detaining authority as certain vital facts were not brought to the attention of the detaining authority and were, therefore, not taken into consideration by that authority. The ground raised by the appellant in the High Court in his own words is as follows: That there has been non-application of mind in passing the detention order. The petitioner says that the following relevant facts which would have weighed the satisfaction of the detaining authority one way or the other and influenced the mind of the detaining authority have been purposely withheld and suppressed from the detaining authority thus vitiating the satisfaction: (a).... (b) That the petitioner in his bail applications (Annexure A B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d before the detaining authority. Later it was said in the same affidavit: Moreover the documents enumerated in these paras were not considered and were not material. The petitioner has not suggested any material in the said documents which was over and above and very material relevant for the purpose of consideration for the detaining authority. Without that the petitioner cannot take any advantage on the same....The bail application can never be said to be material document for the purpose of consideration of the detaining authority when the representations were already considered. On behalf of the State of Rajasthan, two counter affidavits were filed. In the first one, it was stated: The documents referred to by the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... creening Committee in the first instance, but that is immaterial. It was the detaining authority that had to consider the relevant material before taking a decision whether it was necessary to detain the appellant under the COFEPOSA. That was not done and there was, therefore, a clear non-application of mind by the detaining authority to relevant material. Unfortunately, the High Court viewed it as a question of jurisdiction, that is to say the High Court thought that the detaining authority had jurisdiction to make the order of detention despite the retraction by the accused of his earlier confessional statement and the pendency of the criminal case against the appellant in which bail had been granted subject to conditions. No one can disp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
