TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1988 (12) TMI 338
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was stated to have come from Dubai in Air India Flight No. AI-890 on June 14, 1988, via Delhi for Bombay destination while the aircraft landed at Delhi the Customs Officers made queries from the petitioner who was sitting on seat No. 24-A as to whether he was smuggling any contraband. On his denying the same his seat was rummaged and one packet wrapped with Air India polythene bag was recovered from the cushion of the said seat which was found to contain four gold biscuits and two gold chains. The statement of the petitioner under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, was recorded and he confessed of his having smuggled the said contraband at the behest of some person who had promised to pay him ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ently argued that the said particular document was a material piece of evidence which ought to have been placed before the declaring authority because the same could have influenced the mind of the declaring authority in order to decide whether the declaration should be made or not. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has contended that it was quite clear from the facts that the petitioner was already in jail and the detention order had been already made under Section 3(1) of the Cofeposa Act, so the mere fact that his bail application had been rejected was of no consequence and even if the said fact had not been brought to the notice of the declaring authority the same is of no consequence because it would not have i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd the orders made thereupon are vital documents which may influence the mind of the detaining authority/declaring authority in deciding whether the order of detention or declaration should be made or not. Hence, if the vital documents are not placed before the competent authority, the order made by such authority would stand vitiated. At least" in the case of Vinod Kumar (supra) the matter pertained to the declaring authority having not considered the bail application and the b'ail order made thereupon. In criminal writ No. 115/88, Ramaswamy Rajan v. Union of India & Others, decided on August 19, 1988, (5) a Single Bench of this Court considered the point and held that the rejection of the bail application of the detenu by the cou....