9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (1) TMI 303X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unds of detention as may be gathered from Annexure P-2 may be briefly summarised. 2. On March 15, 1992, the Customs Officers Working on an information searched the godown located at the ground floor of building No. 12/21 Shakti Nagar, Delhi and recovered 252 VCPs and ball bearings of foreign origin collectively valued at ₹ 51, 78, 250/-. They were seized, on a reasonable relief that the same had been smuggled into India and are liable to confiscation. One back seat of the Maruti Van and bill book of M/s Anand Industries lying in the said premises were also taken into possession as relevant to the inquiry. Sh. A. Sebastian @ A Sharma made a statement to the effect that about 3 years earlier, he had come into contact with one Sh. Tar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion since they were in receipt of huge consignment of smuggled ball bearings, packed in 100 to 125 wooden cases. From a diary recovered from A. Sebastian, the names of persons who attended the marriage party and made gifts were described and on another page under the heading of Partners, he had, recorded the names of Tarlok Nath, Roop Kumar and the petitioner as partners. Sh. Bakul Vyas, a tenant on the first floor of building No. 12/21 Shakti Nagar, Delhi, made a statement that he had been paying the rent of that building at petitioner's office since 1982. The petitioner admitted that he had purchased the building 12/21, Shakti Nagar, Delhi from M/S Devraj and Company for ₹ 7.5 lacs. The petitioner had, however, been unable to p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nfirmed vide order Annexure P-3 dated May 4, 1992. That apprehending his detention, he had filed Cr. W. 310/92 which was dismissed by this Court as premature on August 12, 1992. It was after the dismissal of this writ petition that show-cause notice was served on the petitioner and thereafter the impugned order of detention was passed. That the petitioner had no connection with the premises from where recovery was effected. The entire evidence collected relates to the activities of Tarlok Nath and Roop Kumar. That the alleged activity was of March 15, 1992 and the detention order was passed on July 17, 1992. There was no explanation for this delay and the order passed is punitive and not preventive in nature because of the filing of Cr. W. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reply to the original petition, but with respect to additional grounds, no reply has been filed although time was granted for the same. It is claimed that it had not been confirmed that the petitioner was a resident of Ambala. That the petitioner's wife had made an application dated October 16, 1992 for grant of parole to the petitioner and had given her address as 714, Roop Nagar, New Delhi. The facts stated in the grounds of detention were reiterated, in the reply, It was further stated that the petitioner had been falsely implicated by A. Sebastian in his statement. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pressed two grounds to challenge the order of detention. Firstly that the detention order was passed with delay and secondly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f grounds given and consider whether such grounds could really weigh with an officer some 7 months later in coming to the conclusion that it was necessary to detain the petitioner to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of essential supplies of foodgrains. It is not explained why there was such a long delay in passing the order. The District Magistrate appears almost to have passed an order of conviction and sentence for offences committed about 7 months earlier. The authorities concerned must have due regard to the object with which the order is passed and if the object was to prevent disruption of supplies of foodgrains one should think that prompt action in such matters should be taken as soon as incidents l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o other countries. Since the recovery was not effected from the possession of the petitioner, he had to rely upon the information that may be supplied by the officers who were in possession of the recovered articles. No reply to this communication tantamounts to the refusal to give information about the articles recovered which was the subject matter for consideration by the Detaining Authority in ordering the detention. This has certainly interfered with the right of the petitioner to make an effective representation to the Advisory Board and to show that he did not indulge in any smuggling activity. 13. Some effort was made by the learned counsel for the Union of India that the petitioner was a resident of Delhi and not of Ambala as cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
