TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1988 (2) TMI 66
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d that 100 foreign marked gold biscuits, each weighing 10 Tolas, were seized from Uttam Chand, a milk vendor. It was disclosed by Uttam Chand that the said gold had been given to him by the appellant. He also disclosed that the appellant had given him 300 gold biscuits. The remaining 200 gold biscuits were taken away from Uttam Chand by Raj Kumar alias Chhotu, the servant of the appellant. Raj Kumar alias Chhotu, however, disclosed that he had delivered the said 200 gold biscuits to one Bhuramal Jain of E/19, Ashok Vihar, Phase-1, New-Delhi. The search of the residence of Bhuramal Jain resulted in the recovery of the said 200 biscuits of foreign marked gold from a zipper bag. 3. It is the case of the detaining authority that the appellant Vijay Kumar had, at the instance of one Dubai based smuggler Mohideen, agreed to receive and dispose of smuggled foreign marked gold biscuits in Delhi, which would be supplied to him by two men of Mohideen, named Chandra Bhan and M.P., for a monetary consideration. It is alleged that pursuant to that arrangement, the appellant had received in all 1150 biscuits of foreign marked gold of 10 Tolas each from the said Chandra Bhan and M.P. between t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....here that similar detention orders were passed in respect of the said Uttam Chand, Bhuramal Jain and Raj Kumar alias Chhotu. They also challenged their detentions by filing writ petitions before the Delhi High Court. The High Court, however, by the same judgment under appeal allowed their writ petitions and quashed the orders of detention. 9. It is urged by Mr. Thakur, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, that the detaining authority was obliged to consider before passing the order of detention that the detenu was already in detention on a charge under Section 135 of the Customs Act, but there is no indication in the order of detention that such consideration was made or that the detaining authority was aware that the appellant was already under detention. It is submitted that as there has been non-application of mind by the detaining authority as to the said fact of detention, the order of detention is illegal and invalid. 10. Further, it is submitted by the learned Counsel that while the offence under Section 135 of the Customs Act is a non-bailable one, the detaining authority proceeded on an erroneous assumption that the offence was bailable. In support o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ainst a person who is already in detention or in jail, will always have to be determined in the facts and circumstance of each case. Again, in Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate Etah, (1985) 4. S.C.C 232 it has been ruled by this Court that merely on the ground that an accused in detention as an under-trial prisoner was likely to get bail, an order or detention under the National Security Act, should not ordinarily be passed. 13. The position has been made clear in Suraj Pal Sahu v. State of Maharashtra, (1986) 4 S.C.C 378. While reiterating the principles of law laid down in Ramesh Yadav's case (supra), this Court further observes where the offences in respect of which the detenu is accused are so inter-linked and continuous in character and are of such nature that these affect continuous maintenance of essential supplies and thereby jeopardize the security of the State, then subject to other conditions being fulfilled, a man being in detention would not detract from the order being passed for preventive detention. 14. In a recent decision in Smt. Shashi Aggarwal v. State of U.P., Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 735 of 1987 disposed of on 11-1-1988, this Court has made a review of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....contention made on behalf of the appellant that there has been non-application of mind by the detaining authority to the relevant facts. The detaining authority besides being aware of the fact that the appellant was already in detention, has taken into consideration the relevant facts before passing the impugned order of detention under the Act, which is apparent from the grounds of detention. In the circumstances, the contention that the impugned order of detention should be struck down on the ground of .non-application of mind by the detaining authority, is rejected. 17. It is next contended on behalf of the appellant that the Advisory Board acted contrary, to the principles of natural justice in not examining the witnesses of the appellant whom the appellant wished to examine in rebuttal of the allegations made in the grounds of detention and also in not considering the request of the appellant to have the assistance of his friend before the Advisory Board. In order to consider this contention, a few facts may be stated. On April 29, 1987, the Advisory Board held its meeting. On April 27, 1987, the appellant made a representation to the Advisory Board. In that representation,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....id not avail himself of the same. 20. A similar contention was raised before the High Court. The High Court, after referring to the affidavit of the detaining authority, has observed that it was for the detenu at the time of hearing to submit to the Advisory Board that his witnesses, who were present outside the Board room, should be examined, and that he should also be allowed assistance of his friend. Referring to the report of the Advisory Board, dated May 13, 1987, the High Court points out that while the appellant Vijay Kumar, Raj Kumar and Uttam Chand appeared in person, Bhuramal Jain was represented by his Counsel before the Advisory Board. The Advisory Board did consider the representation of Vijay Kumar and heard him and also the co-detenus. 21. It appears from the observation made by the High Court that the appellant, without making any prayer before the Advisory Board for the examination of his witnesses or for giving him assistance of his friend, started arguging his own case, which in all probability, had given an impression to the members of the Advisory Board that the appellant would not examine any witness. The appellant should have made a specific prayer befo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that date. The Senior Technical Officer put his note on 30-4-1987 to the Detaining authority. The Detaining Authority was, however, on leave on 1-5-1987 and 2nd May and 3rd May 1987, being holidays, the Detaining Authority passed orders on 4-5-1987 rejecting the representation of the petitioner's wife and forwarded the file to the Minister of State for Finance for his consideration on behalf of the Central Government. The Minister rejected the representation on 6-5-1987 and the file was received in the section concerned on 7-5-1987. Thereafter, the memo regarding rejection of the representation was issued on 8-5-1987." 7. It appears from paragraph 2 of the Affidavit extracted above that comments from the DRI were received by the Senior Technical Officer on 28-4-1987. He, however, could not take action on 29-4-1987 as hearing of the appellant's case was fixed before the Advisory Board on that date and, accordingly, he placed the matter with his note on 30-4-1987 before the detaining authority. Mr. Thakur, Counsel for the appellant, demurs to the dealing of the matter by the Senior Technical Officer and not by the detaining authority himself. We do not think that any objection can....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent. Such assumption is without any foundation. The contention in this regard is, accordingly, rejected. 26. As regards the representation, dated 23-4-1987 of the appellant to the detaining authority, it appears from the statement made in paragraph 3 of the said additional affidavit that it was rejected by him on 4-5-1987. There is a further statement that after such rejection, the file was forwarded to the Minister of State for Finance for his consideration on behalf of the Central Government and the Minister rejected the representation on 6-5-1987. It is contended by Mr. Thakur, learned counsel for the appellant, that as the representation was addressed to the detaining authority, there was no necessity for forwarding the file to the Minister after the representation was rejected by the detaining authority. The learned Additional Solicitor General, however, points out with reference to the records, that the file was not forwarded to the Minister after the rejection of the representation by the detaining authority. There was, therefore, a mistake in the statement made in paragraph 3 of the said additional affidavit. In our opinion, nothing turns out of the fact that after the r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ay be detained in pursuance of any detention order shall be a period of one year from the date of detention or the specified period. Section 10 does not provide that in imposing the maximum period of detention, any reason has to be given. In conforming the order of detention, it may be reasonably presumed that the Government has applied its mind to all the relevant facts and, thereafter, if it imposes the maximum period of detention, it cannot be said that the Government has not applied its mind as to the period of detention. In any event, under Section 11 of the Act, a detention order may, at any time, be revoked or modified by the Government. In the circumstances, we do not think that the detenu was in the least prejudiced or that there has been non-application of mind by the Government to the question of period of detention of the detenu. This contention of the appellant also fails. No other point has been urged in this appeal. 30. For the reasons aforesaid, the judgment of the High Court is affirmed and the appeal is dismissed. [Per : Jagannatha Shetty, J.]. - 31. 1 agree respectfully with the Judgment of my learned brother M.M. Dutt, J., but I add a few words of my own o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....If the grounds are germane it would be perfectly legitimate exercise of power to make an order of detention. 36. In the instant case, having regard to the nature of the grounds furnished to the detenu, I agree with my learned brother that there is hardly any justification to find fault with the order of detention. 37. The next aspect which needs to be clarified is whether it is necessary for the concerned authority to give special reasons for directing the detention for the maximum period prescribed under the Act. It was, urged that it is a must for the concerned authority to give special reasons. And if no such reasons are given, then it amounts to non-application of the mind. The decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, (Gwalior Bench) in Bharat v. District Magistrate (1986 Criminal Law Journal, 1976) was relied upon in support of the contention. There it was observed (at p. 186) :- "We did not find in the records consideration of relevant circumstances that obtained on the date when the confirmation was made in each case. No reasons are given as to why the authority concerned considered it necessary to continue detention in each case for maximum period of twelve month....