9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (2) TMI 371X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de by the High Court of Karnataka dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the appellant challenging the legality and validity of the order of detention dated 7.1.1991 passed by the State of Karnataka. The first respondent in the appeal, namely, the State of Karnataka in exercise of the powers conferred by the Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act 1974 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') passed the impugned detention order on 7th January 1991 with a view to preventing him from engaging in keeping and transporting smuggled goods falling within the mischief of Section 3(1)(iii) of the Act. The appellant was directed to be detained and kept in the custody of the central prison, Bang ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... site satisfaction for passing the impugned order. The High Court rejected all those contentions and dismissed the Writ Petition. Hence this appeal. Before this Court the petitioner has filed a separate Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India raising certain additional grounds. Those grounds are: (1) The detenu made a request to the detaining authority to forward a copy of his representation to the Central Government and that the detaining authority has not forwarded the same to the Central Government as requested by him. Even assuming that it has been forwarded, his represe tation has not been disposed of in time and as such there is violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. (2) The no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his nature and especially when such a contention has been raised before the High Court. We want through the explanation given in para 9 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent by the then commissioner and Secretary to Government, Home Department. It is not denied that the detention order was executed after a period of 5 months and 11 days. What the first respondent states is that various efforts were taken to trace the detenu at Tellicherry at the address given in the grounds of detention as well as in the Bombay address, but he could not be secured. Further it has been stated that though the arresting officers attempted to secure him at the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate at Belgaum on 6.3.91, 28.3.91 and 14.5.9 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esting officers did not take any real and genuine effort to secure and detain the appellant. The explanation now offered stating that the appellant was fugitive, eluding the dragnet of the detention order cannot be accepted, because during the alleged period of search he has appeared before the Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay on two occasions during Feb. 1991, that is after passing of the detention order. All the above points show that no serious and sincere effort appears to have been taken by the arresting officers and that there was only exchange of correspondence between the Department and the arresting officers. It is incomprehensible as to why no effort has been made to secure the appellant/detenu during the two days, name ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
