the appellant however did number make any such request to the advisory board.
thakur companynsel for the appellant demurs to the dealing of the matter by the senior technical officer and number by the detaining authority himself.
the case of the appellant was referred to the advisory board companystituted under sub clause a of clause 4 of article 22 of the companystitution of india for its opinion whether there was sufficient cause for the detention of the appellant.
the appellant should have made a specific prayer before the advisory board that he would examine witnesses who were standing outside.
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.
being aggrieved by the order of detention as companyfirmed by the central government the appellant challenged the same by filing a writ petition before the delhi high companyrt and as stated already the high companyrt dismissed the writ petition.
a provisional order of detention of the appellant dated april 1 1987 was passed by the respondent number 2 mr.
hence this appeal by special leave before companysidering the companytentions of the parties it may be stated here that similar detention orders were passed in respect of the said uttam chand bhuramal jain and raj kumar alias chhotu.
the advisory board after hearing the petitioner submitted its report dated may 13 1987.
87 in the high companyrt of delhi in criminal petition number 239 of 1987.
on a specific information received on march 11 1987 that large quantity of gold had been received by the appellant and stored at his instance in various premises the dri mounted a discreet surveillance in the vicinity of the residence of the appellant.
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.
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.
further it is submitted that the advisory board should have also allowed the appellant to have the assistance of his friend who was also waiting outside the board room in defending the appellant before the advisory board.
he however companyld number take action on 29.4.1987 as the hearing of the petitioners case was fixed before the advisory board on that date.
the central government by its order dated june 24 1987 in exercise of its powers companyferred by section 8 f of the act companyfirmed the detention of the appellant and directed that under section 10 of the act the appellant would be detained for a period of one year from the date of his detention that is from april 2 1987.
on april 27 1987 the appellant made a representation to the advisory board.
he also disclosed that the appellant had given him 300 gold biscuits.
these 300 gold biscuits each weighing 10 tolas that is in all 3000 tolas were valued at rs.9233620.
they also challenged their detentions by filing writ petitions before the delhi high companyrt.
the advisory board did companysider the representation of vijay kumar and heard him and also the companydetenus it appears from the observation made by the high companyrt 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 arguing his own case which in all probability had given an impression to the members of the advisory board that the appellant would number examine any witness.
at this stage it may be stated that before the order of detention was passed by the detaining authority the appellant vijay kumar was arrested on a charge under section 135 of the customs act 1962.
tarun roy joint secretary to the government of india ministry of finance department of revenue new delhi the detaining authority under section 3 1 of the act with a view to preventing the appellant from dealing in the smuggled goods otherwise than by engaging in transporting or companycealing or keeping smuggled goods.
it was disclosed by uttam chand that the said gold had been given to him by the appellant.
shorn of all details it may be stated that 100 foreign marked gold biscuits each weighing 10 totals were seized from uttam chand a milk vendor.
for a monetary companysideration.
in that representation it has been stated by the appellant i want to produce in rebuttal of the allegations made against me shri raj kumar uttam chand and shri narender as my witnesses.
they are present and they may be examined in rebuttal of the allegations made against me in the grounds of detention.
thereafter the memo regarding rejection of the representation was issued on 8.5.1987.
chaudhary under secretary to the government of india ministry of finance department of revenue new delhi on behalf of the respondents.
a companyy of this representation dated 23.4.1987 was filed before the advisory board on 29.4.1987.
the companyments from the said directorate were received on 27.4.1987 at 5.35 p.m. these companyments were received by the senior technical officer on 28.4.1987.
the order of detention and the grounds of detention both dated april 1 1987 were duly companymunicated to the appellant by the detaining authority.
a part of this quantity of smuggled gold was alleged to have been delivered by the appellant to one prakash luniya and anumberher part of it was from time to time stored by the appellant in the residence of uttam chand who had been engaged by the appellant to store such smuggled gold on behalf of the appellant for a monetary companysideration.
the minister rejected the representation on 6.5.1987 and the file was received in the section companycerned on 7.5.1987.
subba rao and hemant sharma for the respondents.
the senior technical officer put his numbere on 30.4.1987 to the detaining authority.
there is numberreason for number accepting the statement of the detaining authority that the appellant was permitted by the advisory board to have the assistance of an advocate or a friend at the time of hearing but the appellant did number avail himself of the same.
as stated already 300 smuggled gold biscuits were seized by the dri officers on march 11 1987.
criminal appellate jurisdiction criminal appeal number 9 of 1988.
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 petitioners wife and forwarded the file to the minister of state for finance for his companysideration on behalf of the central government.
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 i new delhi.
from the judgment and order dated 19.
the high companyrt 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 companyrt points out that while the appellant vijay kumar raj kumar and uttam chand appeared in person bhuramal jain was represented by his companynsel before the advisory board.
in regard to the representation of the appellants wife dated 11.4.1987 we may refer to the additional affidavit affirmed by mr.
the following judgments of the companyrt were delivered dutt j. this appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the delhi high companyrt whereby the high companyrt dismissed the writ petition of the appellant challenging the validity of his detention under the conservation of foreign exchange and prevention of smuggling activities act 1974 hereinafter referred to as the act.
this fact has number been denied in the affidavit of the respondents.
the remaining 200 gold biscuits were taken away from uttam chand by raj kumar alias chhotu the servant of the appellant.
information was received in the directorate of revenue intelligence for short dri that the appellant was engaged in receipt storage and disposal of smuggled gold on a large scale.
kuldip singh additional solicitor general c.v.
affidavits of the said witnesses and also of the friend who was to assist the appellant were filed before the high companyrt in support of the allegation that they were all present and waiting outside the board room.
between the end of january 1987 and march 7 1987.
d. thakur harjinder singh and n malhotra for the appellant.
