1991 (9) TMI 356

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi from Dubai on 14.1.1990 by Emirates Airlines Flight No. EK.-700. On suspicion, the baggage was screened by the Customs Officer and presence of some high density metal was noticed in the electric iron kept in the baggage. The electric iron was opened in the presence of two independent witnesses and it was found that in the inner mould of electric iron two pieces of gold were hidden which collectively weighed 1048 gms valued at ₹ 3,47,936.00 . The electric iron Along with the gold was seized under a Panchnama dated 14.1.1990 drawn on the spot. The petitioner surrendered his passport, air ticket and boarding card to the Customs Officials. His statement was recorded. The petitioner was arrested ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....non-application of mind. Learned Counsel further submitted that even thereafter the order of detention was not served on the petitioner till 17.9.1990 which also shows that the continued detention of the petitioner was unnecessary. (4) COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT was filed by the Deputy Secretary, (Home) Delhi Administration on 28th May, 1990. However, in the said counter-affidavit, the delay in passing the detention order was not explained. Therefore, a further opportunity was given to file and additional affidavit. Accordingly, an additional affidavit was filed by the Deputy Secretary, (Home), Delhi administration on 17th August, 1990. It is stated in the said affidavit that the proposal was received from the Customs Department on 26.3.1990; addit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ner was not available and was absconding, but there is no material placed on record to show that any serious attempt was made to serve the detention order on the petitioner while he was on bail. There is no satisfactory explanation for the delay in execution of the detention order either. Excepting the averment that the detention order was sent to the Government of Maharashtra on 23.5.1990. itself for execution and it was not known till 14.9.1990 that the petitioner had surrendered and was in Tihar Jail in New Delhi, no other explanation was forth-coming. Thus, there is unexplained delay between the date of the detention order and the service of the detention order on the petitioner. (6) Learned Counsel for Union of India referred to the j....