9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 630X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r smuggled out the gold from the Airport in his own vehicle. The authority has also found that husband of petitioner has failed to explain construction and source of funding of Restaurant-cum- Hotel i.e. No Escape . The jurisdiction which this Court exercises in exercise of its power under Article 226, judicial review is limited. Against such orders, the High Court or the Supreme Court does not have power similar to appellate court. The normal rule is that when an isolated offence or isolated offences is/are committed, the accused is to be prosecuted. However, law of preventive detention enables the competent authority to detain a particular offender in order to disable/prevent him to repeat offences. As far as argument of learned c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssed detailed order providing various grounds for detention. This Court does not find any ground to interfere within its limited jurisdiction of judicial review - Petition dismissed. - CRWP-465-2019 - - - Dated:- 19-11-2019 - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL Mr. Jagmohan Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sunish Bindlish, Advocate assisted by Mr. Namish Jain, Advocate for the respondents. ORDER ANIL KSHETARPAL, J. By filing petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, correctness of order dated 30.04.2019 passed by the competent authority under Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (iv) dealing in, smuggled goods otherwise than by engaging in transporting or concealing or keeping smuggled goods, or (v) harbouring persons engaged in smuggling goods or in abetting the smuggling of goods, It is necessary so to do, make an order directing that such person be detained: Provided that no order of detention shall be made on any of the grounds specified in this sub-section on which an order of detention may be made under section 3 of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 or under Section 3 of the Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Ordinance, 1988. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court that the representation made on behalf of husband of the petitioner was placed before the Advisory Board, which also formed an opinion that there are sufficient grounds for continuing detention of the husband of the petitioner. The Centre Government has also considered the report of the Advisory Board and other material on record and confirmed the aforesaid detention order. From the facts available on the file, it is apparent that husband of the petitioner was working at Sri Guru Ram Dass Ji International Airport, Amritsar as Assistant Manager (Fire Services). The detention order further records that from the statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, it has been found that husband of the petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tory for the detaining authority to comply with the provisions of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. While exercising powers of judicial review, the Court has to see as to whether the requirement under Article 22(4) have been complied with by the detaining authority or not and once the Court comes to a conclusion that the detaining authority has complied with the requirement, the Court normally would not interfere. The detention order is passed on the subjective satisfaction of detaining authority. In view thereof, question which arises before this Court is whether this Court should interfere or not? Learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out or draw attention of the Court to any substant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith the detention order. This Court has considered the submission, however, finds it to be without substance. No doubt, at the time when the detention order was passed, one of the consideration was that the petitioner is employed as Assistant Manager (Fire) at the Airport, however that was not the only ground on which order of detention was passed. The detaining authority has passed detailed order providing various grounds for detention. Last argument of learned counsel that the order is discriminatory is also to be noticed and rejected, because it is the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, which has to take a call on the basis of material available on the file. The satisfaction, as noticed, h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
