9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (9) TMI 351X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same through his rectum. He was taken to the Gents' toilet situated in the arrival hall of' the Airport where he ejected two black colour adhesive tape bundles. On examination one bundle was found to contain 4 gold bars of 10 tolas each and the other bundle was found to contain 3 gold bars of 10 tolas each. All the gold bars were with foreign markings. The petitioner was not having any licence/permit issued by the Reserve Bank of India Authorities for the import of gold and the seven gold bars were seized for action under Customs Act, 1962 read with Foreign Exchange Act, 1973. 3. The petitioner made a statement before the Customs Officer on September 30, 1989 wherein he stated that he was a labourer earning ₹ 25/- as daily wages and his monthly income was about Its. 350/- and since that income was not sufficient for maintenance, he intended to go to Singapore with view to earn more money and obtained a loan of ₹ 10,000/- from one Shri Pitchamuthu of Nagapattinam and with that money he purchased a ticket and left for Singapore on September 23, 1989 by Singapore Airlines Flight and stayed in the Pallivasal and in Singapore he developed friendship with one Maj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... October 30, 1989 the counsel for the petitioner filed an application for relaxation of the conditions for his release on bail before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and by order dated October 31, 1980 the Additional Chief Metroplitan Magistrate ordered relaxation of the said conditions. 5. On December 12, 1989 the order for the detention of the petitioner was passed wherein it is stated that the detaining authority was satisfied that it was necessary to make the said order for detention of the petitioner with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods. On January 8, 1990 the petitioner appeared before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and filed an application praying for cancellation of the bail and Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate passed the order dated January 8, 1990 cancelling the order of bail and the petitioner was taken into custody. The order for detention was served on the petitioner in jail on January 12, 1990. The petitioner was also served with the grounds of detention dated December 12, 1989. The petitioner submitted a representation which was rejected by the Central Government vide Memorandum dated Feb. 21, 1990. In the meanwhile ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad been made for variation of the conditions of bail and the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate had passed an order varying the conditions of bail. That order passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate varying the conditions of bail was not placed before the detaining authority and it was contended that as a result the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority was vitiated and consequently the order of detention was bad. The said contention was rejected by the Court on the view that the order varying the conditions of bail was not a relevant document and the failure to produce the same before the detaining authority did not vitiate the order of detention. In M. Ahamedkutty v. Union of India, 1990(2) SCC 1 : 1990(1) Recent Criminal Reports 423 this Court has held that the bail application and the bail order passed by the Magistrate granting conditional bail were vital documents and if the same were not considered the satisfaction of the detaining authority itself would be impaired and if the same had been considered they would be documents relied on by the detaining authority which ought to have been supplied to the detenu with the grounds of detention and without them the grou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct judged in the light of the surrounding circumstances. Such past conduct may consist of one single act or of a series of acts. It must be of such a nature that an inference can reasonably be drawn from it that the person concerned would be likely to repeat such acts as to warrant his detention. (Debu Mehto v. The State of West Bengal, 1974(4) SCC 135 : AIR 1974 Supreme Court 816. The question which, therefore, needs to be considered is whether from the past conduct of the petitioner as set out in the grounds of detention it could reasonably be inferred that the petitioner would be likely to repeat such acts in the future. From the grounds of detention it appears that on September 30, 1989 the petitioner arrived at Madras International Airport from Singapore and he was found carrying seven gold bars weighing 70 tolas in two bundles concealed in his body which were ejected by the petitioner through the rectum and the petitioner had travelled from Singapore to Madras on the basis of a passport issued in the name of Mohammed Ali son of Madharsa Rowther resident of Nagapattinam though the real name of the petitioner is Mohamed Sulthan son of Mohamed Sherif resident of Punganur. In the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gence) Madras. The order could not be executed on the petitioner by the police as he was not available at the known address. In the said counter affidavit it is stated that when the petitioner surrendered himself in the Court on January 8, 1990 the counsel concerned informed the Customs House Madras about the same vide his letter dated January 9, 1990 and the Customs House vide their letter dated January 9, 1990 informed Additional Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Public (SC) Department, Madras and also the Deputy Inspector General of Police (CID) Intelligence, Madras, requesting them to effect the service of detention order immediately on the petitioner at Central Prison Madras and thereupon the Deputy Inspector (CID) Intelligence, Madras by their crash message dated January 10, 1990 informed the Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur (East) to arrange to execute the detention order on the petitioner and on the receipt of the said intimation the District Police Superintendent reached Madras with the detention order and served the same on the petitioner on January 12, 1990 in the presence of the jail authorities. The said explanation which has been offered by the respondents ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of the representation alone have been set out. Shri Datar has, however, pointed out that for the purpose of considering the representation the Central Government had to obtain the comments of the sponsoring authority on the said representation and that the sponsoring authority is at Madras and that the communication between the Central Government and the sponsoring authority is by post. It has been submitted by Shri Datar that after the receipt of the representation of the petitioner at Delhi on January 30, 1990 the Central Government forwarded the same by post to the sponsoring authority at Madras for its comments and the sponsoring authority sent its comments on the representation from Madras by post and on receipt of the said comments the representation was considered by the Central Government. Shri Datar has invited our attention to the counter affidavit wherein in reply to the averments contained in para 1 (viii) of the writ petition it is stated that parawise comments on the representation were furnished to the Ministry on February 12, 1990. According to Shri Datar the time taken by the Central Government to deal with the representation was from February 13 to February 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... possible to hold that there was inordinate delay in the consideration of the representation of the petitioner by the Central Government and the detention of the petitioner cannot be held to be invalid on that basis. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner has lastly urged that the order dated February 21, 1990 rejecting the representation of the petitioner is in English language and it is not in the language which the petitioner understands. This ground has not been raised by the petitioner in the writ petition and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The photostat copy of the order dated Feb. 21, 1990 which was sent for service on the petitioner has, however, been placed before us. The said copy bears the following endorsement by the Jailor, Central Prison, Madras Readover and explained in the language known to him and served by me. The said endorsement shows that at the time of service of the order dated February 21, 1990 the Jailor had explained the said order to the petitioner in the language known to him. 12. Since none of the grounds that have been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner merits acceptance, the writ petition fails and it is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
