1988 (7) TMI 277

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ith a view to preventing him from smuggling goods. The order was served on February 2, 1988 and the grounds of detention were supplied. 2. The grounds, inter alia, recite that on July 9, 1987 the detenu arrived at Sahar Air Port from Dubai. The detenu was in possession of Indian passport. The detenu filed a baggage declaration to the tune of Rs. 6,370/-. The Customs officers suspected that the detenu was carrying contraband goods on his person and made enquiries. The detenu denied carrying of any contraband goods. The detenu was then asked to undertake a metal detector test and thereafter six gold bars concealed in rectum packed in two bundles were recovered. The detenu also took out two bundles from his private parts. The bundles were w....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e detenu was produced before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bombay on July 10, 1987. The Magistrate, while remanding the detenu to the judicial custody, directed that the Intelligence Officer, Air Intelligence Unit, Sahar Air Port may retain the passport of the detenu. Shri Irani submitted that the order of the Magistrate directing retention of the passport was not placed before the detaining authority and that is a vital and relevant factor and failure to do so would vitiate the order. It is not possible to accede to the submission of the learned counsel. It is not in dispute that the application for remand made by the Customs Authorities was placed before the detaining authority. It is equally not in dispute that an endorsement made b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ur judgment, the fact that the direction of the Magistrate that passport should be retained by the Customs Officer is not palced before the detaining authority is not fatal to sustain the order. 4. The second submission urged by Shri Irani is that on March 21, 1988 the detenu addressed communication to the detaining authority expressing a desire to be represented by his next friend at the time of hearing before the Advisory Board. The detaining authority was also informed the name and address of the next friend and it was requested that the detaining authority should ensure that the next friend remains present before the Advisory Board. Shri Irani complained that detaining authority did not bother to inform the next friend and therefore ....