9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (1) TMI 312X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ency equivalent to rs. 9,19,058.25 was recovered. On 20-5-1992 the residence of the petitioner was also searched, but nothing incriminating was recovered. On 6-6-1992 a complaint under Sections 132 and 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act was filed against the petitioner and the petitioner was granted bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi on 7-7-1992. Departmental proceedings were started against the petitioner and a show cause notice was issued on 26-8-1992 and on 8-10-1992 this detention order was passed and in pursuance of that detention order the petitioner was arrested on 4-11-1992. The detention order was served on the petitioner on 6-11-1992 when he was in jail and on 12-11-1992 he made a representation to respondent Nos. 1 and 2. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is a reasonable nexus between the prejudicial activity and the purpose of detention and in such circumstances the delay in passing the detention order has to be overlooked. In the counter affidavit filed by Mr. M.U. Siddiqui. Deputy Secretary(Home). Govt. of National Capita] Territory of Delhi, it has been admitted that the detention order was passed on 8-10-1992 and on the same day it was sent to the Govt. of Punjab for execution. The petitioner is a resident of Gurdaspur. The detention order and the accompanying documents were sent by the Govt. of Punjab to the concerned S.P. who. in turn. must have sent them to the S.H.O. of the concerned police station and; Therefore, this time ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ority took 3 months in passing the detention order which was served on the petitioner on 6-11-1992, i.e. after about 28 days. In this case it has to be seen whether the delay in passing of the detention order which is about 5 months from the date of the incident and after three months after the grant of bail by the Additional Sessions Judge has been properly explained or not. No doubt it is true that if the respondent i.e. the prosecution shows that there is a reasonable nexus between the prejudicial activity and the purpose detention, the delay in passing the detention order has to be overlooked. (7) In the present case I find that there was no additional material before the Detaining Authority which necessitated the passing of the dete ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
