TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1993 (11) TMI 255
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ay Gandhi Transport Nagar, New Delhi, in the presence of the petitioner and recovered goods of foreign origin such as telephone, tining, chemical, torches Micro-floppy discs etc. of the value of more than Rs. 37 lacs. The petitioner failed to produce any document to prove the legal import of the goods the same were seized in the presence of independent witnesses under a Panchnama. On the same day another godown situated at No. CW 580, Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, New Delhi was searched on the disclosure of the petitioner from where 13824 torches of Chinese origin were recovered. From another premises 166 bales of polyester texturised yarn of foreign origin was also recovered. In his statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 the petitioner stated that he was the sole owner of the firm known as M/s Chopra Associates and he had purchased the premises where the firm was running business from a person named Bansi Lal of Delhi whose exact address he did not know by paying him Rs. 50,000/- in cash as advance. He further stated that he was owner of another shop situated at No. CW 580 in Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, Delhi which he purchased from Sushil Cho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e order of detention was passed on 22.4.1993 just after one day and it showed complete non-application of mind in passing the order. 4. The various grounds assailing the validity of the impugned order were mentioned in para No. 18 of the petition, but in the return filed by the respondents the averments made in the petition were not specifically denied. Only this fact was alleged that there was proper application of mind in passing the detention order by the detaining authority and in the light of the facts of the case and the petitioner's involvement in smuggling of contraband goods valued at Rs. 57,43,050/- his detention under COFEPOSA 1974 was fully justified and well within the ambit of law. 5. I have heard Mr. R.S Randhawa, Advocate, with Mr. R.S Bajaj and Mr. G.S Chahal, Advocates, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D.D Sharma, Advocate, the learned counsel for the respondents. 6. It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that earlier in November, 1992 some miscellaneous goods were recovered by the officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence from certain trucks and in connection with that seizure Yog Ram, Tarsem Singh and Sushil Kumar we....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rd to the fact that the documents on which the detaining authority purported to rely in making the order of detention ran to about 234 pages and the documents included the arrest memo which was prepared at 6.00 P.M on 13th June, 1985. It was observed:- "The reference to the arrest memo which was prepared at 6.00 P.M is one of the documents which was relied upon by the detaining authority indicates that the documents and the proposal for detention must have been placed before the detaining authority some time after 6.00 P.M in which case it would certainly be difficult if not impossible for the detaining authority to make the order the same night. We think that in the facts and circumstances of the case the detaining authority could not have been possibly applied his mind to the voluminous documentary evidence which was placed before him and for that reason alone the order of detention has to be quashed." 7. In the instant case Annexure P/6 contains a list of 25 documents and the documents at serial Nos. 22, 23 and 25 are dated 21.4.1993 It is not made out from the reply submitted by the respondents as to when these documents were produced before the detaining autho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....conclusion arrived at by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention is quite vague and evasive. In the absence of any bail application moved by the petitioner to such conclusion could be arrived at and this was another instance of non-application of mind rendering the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority as not genuine. In Criminal Writ Petition No. 604 of 1992, Rivadeneyta Ricardo Auustin v. Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi, decided on April 8, 1993 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the grounds of detention the following statement occurred in para No. 9:- "The Administrator of the National Capital Territory of Delhi is aware that you are in judicial custody and had not moved any bail application in the Court (s) after 9.6.92 but nothing prevents you from moving bail applications and possibility of your release on bail cannot be ruled out in the near future. Keeping in view your modus operandi to smuggle gold into India and frequent visits to India, The Administrator of the National Capital Territory of Delhi is satisfied that unless prevented you will continue to engage yourself in prejudicial activities once you are....