a of cl.
Customs, Bulsar.
The appellant was heard in person the Governments point of view was placed before the Advisory Board by the Deputy Secretary to the Government, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, who was accompanied by the Assistant Collector.
4 of Article 22 of the.
Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment AND order dated S G 78 of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Application No.
On 10th of April, 1978 the Advisory Board submitted its report giving its opinion that there was sufficient cause for the detention.
The appellant made two representations against his detention to the Government, one dated the 4th and the other dated the 6th of March, 1978, which were received by the Government on the 7th and 8th March, 1978, respectively.
Ram Jethmalani Ashok Desai, S. J. Thakore, K. R. Krishnamurthy, Sri Narain for M s J. B. Dadachanji and Co. for the Appellants.
On the 13th of March, the appellant was accordingly produced before the Advisory Board.
On the 16th of March, 1978, the appellant sent a telegram to the Advisory Board supplementing his oral submissions.
R. Khanna and M. N. Shroff for the State of Maharashtra.
Constitution.
N. Lekhi, Girish Chandra and Miss A. Subhashini for Union of India.
A vessel known as Jamnaprasad BLS 61 valued at one lac of rupees was found grounded in a creek off the companyst near village KimKhadi on the 20th August, 1977.
15 of 1978.
The appellant, who ostensibly carries on the business of manufacturing, sale and export of Umrao brand wick stoves, spray pumps, cash and jewellery metal boxes, in the name and style of Umrao Industries and has his factory for the manufacture of the aforesaid items at village Kim, has been detained by an order of the Addl.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by SEN, J. This appeal by special leave directed against a judgment of the Bombay High Court dated 5th June, 1978, dismissing a petition filed by the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution, by which he prayed for the issue of a writ of habeas companypus, and the companynected petition under Article 32 of the Constitution by his wife for the issuance of a writ of habeas companypus for his release raise a companymon question and therefore they are disposed of by this companymon judgment.
451 of 1978.
It was laden with 12 rolls of stainless steel sheets each weighing one tonne, valued at Rs.
He was arrested and placed under detention on the 5th of February, 1978, and is at present detained in the Central Prison, Bombay.
They made inquiries about the whereabouts of the crew members of the aforesaid vessel Jamnaprasad and were successful in apprehending them and the others involved.
The aforesaid vessel and the companytraband goods found aboard it were seized by the Customs officers for action under the Customs Act, 1962.
At the time of his arrest, the appellant was served with the order of detention together with the grounds of detention with full particulars on which the order of detention was based.
The Government placed before the Board the two representations made by the appellant together with its companyments.
On receipt of information regarding the grounding of the vessel the Customs officers, Hansot, visited the spot and examined the companytents of the cargo aboard the aforesaid grounded vessel.
Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue , New Delhi, dated the 1st of February, 1978 under sub s. 1 of s. 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, with a view to prevent him from smuggling goods.
On 15th February, 1978 the case was referred by the Government to the Advisory Board as required under s. 8 b of the Act to enable the Board to make its report under sub cl.
Intelligence gathered by the Customs officers clearly indicate that the appellant was the main person companynected with the smuggling of the aforesaid cargo of companytraband goods, namely 12 stainless steel sheets recovered from vessel Jamnaprasad BLS 61.
15,44,400/ .
The Advisory Board had, in the meanwhile addressed a letter dated 21st of February, 1978, to the Government intimating that the case would be taken up on the 13th March, asking that the detenu be produced at the hearing and the Government should also forward the representation, if any, made by the appellant, together with the companyments decision of the Government, if any.
The detaining authority rejected the representations made by the appellant on 1 8th of March, 1978.
