9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (6) TMI 134X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s necessary to make the following order: Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, the Government of Karnataka direct that the said Shri R. Satya Das, be detained and kept in custody in the Central Prison, Bangalore. By order and in the name of the Governor of Karnataka. Sd./- V. Venugopal Naidu, Commr. for Home Affairs and Secretary to Government, Home Dept. The grounds of detention are: (1) You are doing business in the business premises in the name and style of M/s. Prakash & Brothers, Jain Street, Mandya. The Inspector of Central Excise, Preventive, IDO Mysore, searched the premises of the said shop on 13-1-1977 and seized smuggled goods, viz., wrist watches, photographic film rolls, casette tapes, cosmetics, etc. collectively valued at ₹ 830/-. Watches and cosmetics are notified under Section 11-B of the Customs Act, 1962 and also specified under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962. In your statement given before the Customs Officers, dated 13-1-1977 you stated inter alia that the shop belonged to your brother Prakash and since Prakash had been o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Carton in the front room of the house. Cosmetics, adjustable safety razors and blades, playing cards, fountain pens, fabrics made wholly or mainly of synthetic yarn, casette tapes are notified under Section 11-B of the Customs Act, 1962 and cosmetics, blades, playing cards, fabrics made wholly or mainly of synthetic yarn are specified under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962. These goods were seized under the Customs Act, 1962 for further action. You in your statement dated 22-1-1979 given before the Supdt. of Central Excise and Customs, Mandya, stated inter alia that you were residing in the said house along with your brother Shri R. Prakash; that you had purchased the said goods from vendors of Kerala and Tamil Nadu; that you did not know the names of the vendors; that you were also not aware whether any customs duty on the said goods were obtained for purposes of sale in your shop. With reference to the letterhead seized from the house on which details of the foreign goods and values were written, you stated in your statement dated 22-1-1979 that this letterhead was kept for your information to know the value for the purpose of sale. You also admitted in your said statement th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d out an area, limited though it be, within which the validity of the subjective satisfaction can yet be subjected to judicial scrutiny. The basic postulate on which the Courts have proceeded is that the subjective satisfaction being a condition precedent for the exercise of the power conferred on the executive, the Court can always examine whether the requisite satisfaction is arrived at by the authority; if it is not, the condition precedent to the exercise of the power would not be fulfilled and the exercise of the power would be bad. The learned Judge continued: Where the liberty of the subject is involved, it is the bounden duty of the Court to satisfy itself that all the safeguards provided by the law have been scrupulously observed and the subject is not deprived of his personal liberty otherwise than in accordance with law. 7. With these principles in mind, we now proceed to examine the contentions. Learned Counsel urged that grounds Nos. 1 and 2 are so remote that they have no nexus with the purpose for which the detention has been ordered. It seems to us that the contention is well founded. Both the grounds refer to the incidents of the year 1977. Adjudicatory proceed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing of the word "keeping" as "custody or charge". It seems to us that the sweep of the word 'keeping' should not unreasonably be curtailed and there is also no warrant for restricting its ordinary meaning in the set up in which it is found. The Court must make such construction as will suppress the mischief, and advance the remedy. It has been said : To carry out effectually the object of a statute, it must be so construed as to defeat all attempts to do, or avoid doing, in an indirect or circuitous manner that which it has prohibited or enjoined. This manner of construction has two aspects. One is that the Courts, mindful of the mischief rule, will not be astute to narrow the language of a statute so as to allow persons within its purview to escape its net. In Kanwar Singh v. Delhi Administration , the Supreme Court observed: It is the duty of the Court in construing a statute to give effect to the intention of the Legislature. If, therefore, giving a literal meaning to a word used by the draftsman, particularly in a penal statute would defeat the object of the legislature, which is to suppress a mischief the Court can depart from the dictionary ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... simple process of the making of a detention order, he could only be so deprived of if the order is in terms of the rules and strict compliance with the letter of the rule is the essence of the matter, and if there is any doubt regarding the observance of the rules, that doubt must be resolved in favour of the detenu. The order of detention which has the effect of depriving the liberty of a citizen without any trial must be construed very strictly and the requirement of the law has to be scrupulously observed. In Commr. of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji the Supreme Court observed: ...We are clear that public order, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself. We must therefore be guided by the language of the order and not by the intendment of the De ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... keeping smuggled goods. It appears that the adjudicatory proceedings were not initiated for keeping the smuggled goods. Those proceedings were terminated with an imposition of penalty of ₹ 200/-. That order was made on 21st March, 1979 whereas the detention order was passed by the Government on 15th May 1979. If all these materials had been placed before the Detaining Authority it would have influenced the mind of the Detaining Authority one way or the other. 14. A case almost similar to one before us came up before the Supreme Court in Ashadevi v. K. Shivaraj AIR 1979 SC 447. In that case, the detention order was made with a view to prevent a person from engaging in transporting smuggled goods. The Detaining Authority based its decision on the detenu's confessional statement made before the Customs Officers, but that confessional statement was subsequently retracted by the the detenu at the first available opportunity and that retracted confessional statement was not placed before the Detaining Authority, although it was available with the Customs officials, The Court on that count observed: ...It cannot be disputed that the fact of retraction would have its own impa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
