9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (1) TMI 61X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... one and common. The orders of detention are to be found at Annexure A in each of these petitions and the grounds at respective Annexure B. We say that the grounds of detention are almost the same because, as said by us above, the occasion for giving rise to the alleged satisfaction of the detaining authority is a single transaction, to which we shall advert immediately. It is alleged that on 10-2-1984, the son of detenu Ahmed Jelaila, who was the owner of a mechanised boat, styled as "Al-Anwar" engaged the service of one Mr. T.D. Francis, a driver of the launch, against the promise to pay him Rs. 15000 for a trip to Dubai and back. Said Mr. T.D. Francis readily agreed. In the meantime, Ahmed Jaleila, the detenu of the special Criminal Appli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ped into the sea, but two persons came to be rescured by the very Customs Officers. They are T.D. Francis and one Kasam Alna. Their statements of and those of various witnesses were recorded and ultimately the orders of detention came to be passed against these four persons on 29-6-1984 by the Central detaining authority, who was the Additional Secretary to the Government of India. 2. These matters were heard by us and various contentions were advanced before us. Those points need not detain us because, in our view, despite our agony upto their release as citizens of India, we find ourselves helpless in the matter. All these petitioners had filed writ petitions in the High Court in the month of April, 1984, asserting that they were innoc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled by each of these detenus in the High Court in the month of April, 1984 to the detaining authority, wherein they had asserted that they were innocent, they had nothing to do with this journey of Al-Anwar, export of snake skins or material of any contraband goods. Unfortunately for the detaining authority and the sponsoring authority, this important document was not placed before the detaining authority and obviously, therefore, the copy of such a document was not furnished to the detenu also. What was furnished was only the High Court's order on those writ petitions. Those orders were read before us and we find that the High Court had only dealt with the prayers about the assistance of an Advocate when they were being interrogated by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed. His answer to this contention is two-fold. Firstly, he stated that the copy of the High Court's order served the purpose and when in the subsequent statements also the very stand of the detenu was there before the detaining authority, their earlier assertions would not have conveyed any force to the mind of the detaining authority, which sat to consider the cases of detention. It is difficult to accept this argument. We have already stated above that the order of the High Court on those four petitions, which was shown to us, does not refer to this assertive part of the statements of these detenus. Secondly, it cannot be said that subsequent similar stand taken by these detenus was before the detaining authority, which the detaining auth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
