9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (10) TMI 236X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iraj was carried on 30th November, 1986 by Superintendent, Central Excise and 11 gold biscuits were recovered buried in the floor of the house which was dug up at the instance of said Sirajudeen @ Siraj and gold of foreign markings was taken out. The statement given by him under Section 108 of the Customs Act revealed that the petitioner was his friend, and accompanied him from Delhi to Bombay for sale of the smuggled gold where both of them had stayed at Galaxy Lodge near Santa Cruz, and that they had been able to dispose of some of the gold biscuits carried by them and that in all they had taken 60 gold biscuits to Bombay and that the 11 recovered from his house were the remaining ones. Sirajudeen @ Siraj also revealed that the present petitioner Issac Babu was a friend of his brother T. A. Haneefa and got acquainted with him at Delhi and all three of them had taken out the 60 gold biscuits concealed in a cooking range brought by one Abdul Rahiman and that they had kept concealed those gold biscuits at a guest house at Nizamuddin, New Delhi and thereafter had gone to Bombay. The search on the premises, where Sirajudeen @ Siraj had been staying, was also carried out and amongst ot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d and it was only on that account that the detention was held to be vitiated. That case itself takes note of the fact, on the basis of certain decided cases, that what is required is that the delay must be explained satisfactorily by the detaining authority. (Ref. Hemlata Kantilal Shah v. State of Maharashtra, , and a very recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Yogendra Murari v. State of U.P. and others, , where the court had reiterated the view consistently taken earlier by observing as under : ......... it is not right to assume that an order of detention has to be mechanically struck down if passed after some delay ........ It is necessary to consider the circumstances in each individual case to find out whether the delay has been satisfactorily explained or not. 8. In the co-detent's case, the impugned order of detention was made on 7th October 1987 but the detenu had been arrested on 18th January 1988 in execution thereof and when it was found that there absolutely no explanation for that delay in the counter affidavit or otherwise, it was held in that context that : .......... the detaining authority has failed to explain the long delay in securi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... leppey and surrender before him for the purpose of execution of the detention order. This proposal was finalised and in pursuance thereof notification was issued on 20th January 1988. A copy thereof has also been placed on record. The delay in this case, therefore, is fully explained and it is not open to the petitioner to argue on the basis of the decision in the case of T. A. Abdul Rehman (supra) that his detention also stands vitiated, because of delay in execution of the detention order because in that case, as already noted, there was no explanation at all for the delay, and there was no plea that any resort to the provisions of Section 7(1)(b) of the Act was even considered, much less undertaken. I therefore negative this plea of the petitioner. 11. Mr. Setia then argued that the detention order itself is invalidated for the reason that the material which was relevant for the formation of the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority was not placed before the said authority before passing of the detention order. Those documents, according to him, are application for bail and the order passed thereon. He read out from para 10 of the writ petition in which averment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of the statement as such, and wherever there have been express retractions, these have been placed before the detaining authority, as the grounds of detention would show, namely, those of Haneefa and Sirajudeen. He further argued, placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Prakash Chandra Mehta v. Commissioner and Secretary, Government of Kerala and others, that even if retraction of a statement was not brought to the notice of detaining authority, but if there was otherwise sufficient, independent and corroborative material placed before the detaining authority, then mere failure on the part of the Sponsoring Authority to bring to the notice of the detaining authority retraction of the statement would not affect the validity of the detention order. 14. The learned counsel argued that in this case, the grounds of detention very clearly show that both from the house search of T. A. Sirajudeen @ Siraj, as well as the present petitioner, visiting cards of Hotel Galaxy, Santa Cruz, Bombay were recovered. He further pointed out that it is further mentioned in the grounds of detention that a rough road sketch was recovered from the house search of Sirajud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... haram Raut v. State of Maharashtra and another, , can be of no avail to him because every case depends upon its facts and circumstances, and there is no indication in the judgment of that case that there was any other material before the detaining authority to arrive at the subjective satisfaction about the necessity of preventive detention. Similarly the facts in the case of Ayya Alias Ayub v. State of U.P. and another, , are also distinguishable. 17. I also find force in the arguments of Mr. G. Prakash that nothing turns on the failure to place the bail order containing certain conditions of attendance in the office of the Superintendent concerned. Twice a week or the modification order because the detention order in this case had been passed under the provisions of Ss. 3(i)(iii) and 3(i)(iv) of the Act with a view to prevent the petitioner from engaging in transportation or concealment or keeping smuggled gold or dealing in smuggled gold and in such a case the conditions of bail order, putting certain restrictions on the movements or containing certain directions are not relevant as held in the case of Haridas Amarchand Shah of Bombay v. K. L. Verma and others, . For the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
