TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1985 (4) TMI 325
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... from engaging in ransporting, concealing and keeping smuggled goods. By virtue of the said order the petitioner is detained in Central Jail Tihar, Delhi. The grounds of detention also dated 26th April, 1984 were served on the petitioner, on 4th May, 1985. (2) It is mentioned in the grounds of detention that the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence had received information during the months of March/ April, 1984 that a gang of smugglers was indulging in smuggling of contraband goods through the Central Warehousing Corporation, Gurgaon Road, New Delhi, with the connivance of officers of customs posted there. The petitioner was one of those officers. A specific intelligence was gathered by the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intellig....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... with the connivance and help of Bhupinder Singh, the petitioner, who was employed as Inspector of Customs, goods were got cleared by paying nominal duty. (4) The petitioner was suspended from service on 28th June, 1984. Thereafter, a show-cause notice was served on him by the Collector of Customs on 6th November, 1984. On 29th November, 1984, a complaint was filed for offences under section 135(1) and section 1 of the Act read with section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code by the Collector of Customs against the petitioner and his co-conspirators in the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi. During the pendency of the trial the impugned detention order was passed on 26th Aparil. 1985. It is the case of the petitioner....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat non-supply of the documents which were in the power possession of the respondents vitiates the detention order in as much as he was denied the rights to make an effective representation. (6) In our view, the order of detention and the continued detention of the petitioner is liable to be quashed on the first ground itself which has been urged by Mr. Harjinder Singh. In that view of the matter it is not necessary to deal with the other grounds of challenge. (7) In the writ petition it has specifically been averred in ground No. 6 that there is a delay of one year in making the order of detention from the date of the alleged incident, i.e., 9th May, 1984. In the return, in reply to grounds 7 and 8 it is denied that there has been an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Administration, on 22nd November, 1984, i.e. about a week before filing of the complaint against the petitioner in the Criminal Court. The proposal was placed before the screening committee on or about 11th December, 1984. It appears that as certain information was required, the meeting was adjourned to 14th December, 1984, on which date the proposal was approved. Thereafter, on the file there is no indication as to what happened uptil 28th February, 1985, when draft grounds were put up. Those grounds were sent to the law department who settled the same on 1st March, 1985, i.e. within a day. On 2nd March, 1985, some documents were sent to Amritsar for translating them into Punjabi Those were received on 6th April, 1985. The case was placed ....