It was further stated that the representation to the State Government should be addressed to the Minister of State for Home Mantralaya, Bombay.
530 31 of 1991 in the High Court of Bombay under Article 226 of the Constitution.
It was, however, number forwarded to the Central Government and hence the Central Government had numberoccasion to companysider the representation of the appellants for the revocation of the detention orders.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by AHMADI, J. Special leave granted.
That paragraph reads as under I would also like to request you that the companyies of these representations be sent to the State and Central Govern ment for their kind companysideration in view of the above facts so as to revoke and or set aside my order of detention and order my release forth with.
In the case of the Advisory Board the appellants were informed that the representation may be addressed to the Chairman, Advisory Board companystituted under the Act and may be forwarded through the Superintendent of Jail.
K. Jain and V.V. Vaze For the State , Maqsood Khan, S.M. Verma, S.A. Syed, M.T. Khan and A.S. Bhasme For the State for the Appellants.
As the detention orders were number revoked the appellants preferred separate habeas companypus writ petitions which were numbered Criminal Writ Petitions Nos.
It was further stated that the representation to the Central Government may be ad dressed to the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue , New Delhi through the Superintendent of Jail.
The events leading to the filing of these two appeals, briefly stated, are that on the afternoon of March 25, 1990, the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence being in possession of information intercepted a motor car at about 3.45 p.m. driven by the appellant Amir Shad Khan with the appellant Aziz Ahmad Khan as his companypa nion.
Subba Rao, A.D.N. Rao and Ms. Sushma Suri for the Respondents.
On the basis of this advice companytained in the grounds of detention the appellants preferred a representation addressed to the Detaining Authority and forwarded it through the Superintendent of Jail, Arther Road Central Prison, Bombay.
After these detention orders were passed on April 24, 1990 they were served on the appellants along with the grounds of detention and basic documents on which reliance was placed.
From the Judgment and Order dated 31.8.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal Nos 485 486 of 1991.
On search of the vehicle 1400 gold bars were recov ered.
Secretary Preventive Detention , Govern ment of Maharashtra for invoking the powers companyferred on him by Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 hereinafter called the Act .
While the matter was under investigation a proposal was made to the first respondent.
It is number disputed that the representation was companysidered and rejected by the State GoVernment.
The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate granted remand.
The statements of the two appellants were recorded and thereafter they were formally arrested on March 28, 1990 and produced before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bombay.
By clauses iii , iv and v of paragraph 43 of the grounds of detention the appellants were informed that they had a right to make a representation to i the State Gov ernment ii the Central Government and iii the Advisory Board against the detention orders, if they so desired.
These orders were passed under sub section 1 of section 3 of the Act with a view to preventing the appellants from smuggling goods and engaging in transporting, keeping and companycealing the same.
On the very next day after the receipt of the proposal the first respondent passed the impugned orders of detention against the two appellants.
1990 of the Bombay High Court in Crl.
530 and 53 1 of the 1990.
W.P. Nos.
It is number necessary to state the various grounds made out in the representation for the revocation of the detention orders but it would suffice to reproduce the last paragraph of the representation.
They were informed that to facili tate expeditious companysideration thereof the Superintendent of Jails may be requested to forward the same to the detaining authority so that the Home Department can put up the case to the Minister for companysideration.
