9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (8) TMI 536X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f documents. Briefly stated the facts are as under : 3. On specific information the officers of Head Quarters Intelligence Unit-II Customs (Prev). Commissionerate, Bombay intercepted one Farook Ibrahim Desai and his minor son Naveed Desai on the domestic Airport, Mumbai on 11th October, 1995 when they were about to board the Jet Airways flight to Ahmedabad which was to depart at 05.50 hours. At the customs office the baggage of the said passenger Farook Desai was examined. Foreign currency equivalent to ₹ 1.61 crores was recovered. It was seized. The electoral identity card of Farook Desai was also seized. Farook Desai disclosed that the foreign exchange was collected from one Bombay party at the behest of his brother Aminbhai at Dubai towards the sale proceeds of smuggled gold which was supplied by Aminbhai. On 11th October, 1995 itself the premises of M/s. Crystal Electronics at Lamington Road were searched. Indian currency of ₹ 9.50 crores was seized. The detenu Kaluram Danaji Prajapati is the partner of M/s. Crystal Electronics. The statement of the detenu was recorded initially on 14th October, 1995 and then on 17th October, 1995. The statement of another person ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hows that this Court came to the conclusion that there was total non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority in passing the earlier order of detention dated 20th January, 1992. In para 6 of its judgment dated 25th August, 1992 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 358 of 1992, this Court has observed as under :- 6. These documents clearly display the non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority. It is a very callous exercise of his valuable powers of detention. The order of Detention is, therefore, malafide and ab initio void. The order of Detention is evidently vitiated by such a non application of mind and has to be set aside. 6. Shri Karmali's grievance is that the subjective satisfaction recorded to the effect that it was necessary to detain the detenu under the COFEPOSA Act with a view to preventing him from engaging in keeping smuggled goods as well as dealing in smuggled goods other than by engaging in transporting or concealing the smuggled goods in future is based upon the facts mentioned earlier in para 10 of the grounds of detention, that the detenu was habitually indulging in keeping smuggled goods as well as dealing in smuggled ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enu was ordered to be released forthwith. A subsequent order of detention was passed under the same law on 26th October, 1988 and in the grounds a reference was made not only to the fact of the earlier order of detention dated 2nd January, 1987 but also to the fact that the High Court had set aside the said detention order on 3rd August, 1987. It was stated that in passing the second order of detention, the detaining authority had taken into consideration the previous grounds of detention also to establish that the petitioner was engaged in bootlegging activities since long. The High Court observed in para 12 of the judgment at page 1238 as under : 12. It emerges from the above authoritative judicial pronouncements that even if the order of detention comes to an end either by revocation or by expiry of the period of detention there must be fresh facts for passing a subsequent order. A fortiori when a detention order is quashed by the Court issuing a high prerogative writ like the habeas corpus or certiorari the grounds of the said order should not be taken into consideration either as a whole or in part even along with the fresh grounds of detention for drawing the requisite su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . It was held that it was of no consequence if the further fresh facts disclosed in the ground of impugned detention order had been considered. A reference was made to the earlier decision in Chhagan Bhagwan Kahar's case (1989 Cri LJ 1145) (supra) and it was observed in para 5 of the decision at page 1815 as under : 5. The most important question that poses itself for consideration in this case is whether the detaining authority while considering the fresh facts disclosed in the grounds of detention has taken into consideration the earlier two detention orders one of 1985 under the National Security Act and the other of 1986 under the PASA Act in forming his subjective satisfaction that the detenu in spite of the passing of the earlier two detention orders has been persistingly indulging in his anti-social activities and as such in preventing such criminal activities which posed a threat to the maiantenance of public order the impugned order of detention has been made by him. It is now well settled by the decisions of this Court while considering the scope of S. 15 of PASA Act that the modification and revocation of detention order by the State Government shall not bar maki ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
