1986 (12) TMI 390

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....gainst the Judgment and order of the Bombay High Court dated May 3, 1986 and the connected petition under Article 32 of the Constitution raise common questions and therefore they are disposed of by this common order. The petitioner by a petition under Article 226 filed before the High Court prayed for the issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus, which is also the prayer before us, for the release of h....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nge Regulation Act. 1973 although they were in reality not so, inasmuch as Section 40. Singh was not a 'gazetted officer of Enforcement' within the meaning of Section 40 of the Act, and therefore there was no material on which the satisfaction of the detaining authority could be reached. (2) In a Habeas Corpus petition the burden was entirely upon the respondents to produce the relevant re....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....detaining authority was influenced by his wrongful assumption that the statements recorded by Section 40. Singh who was not a gazetted officer of Enforcement, were statements made under Section 40 of the FERA, and even assuming that the statements recorded by Section 40. Singh could be treated to be statements relatable to Section 39(b) of the Act, it is not possible to say whether the detaining a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....here was failure on the part of the detaining authority to consider the representation filed by the detenu under Section 8(b) of the COFEPOSA through one Ashok Jain and received at the President's Secretariat on April 15 1985 and therefore the impugned order of detention was vitiated and the continued detention of the detenu was rendered illegal and void. Other subsidiary questions were also r....