assailing the above order and declaration the present petition has been moved on his behalf by his brother in law v. rajan for a writ of habeas companypus.
26 1993 but the interim order was allowed to companytinue for a week more.
after the order of detention was made on july 11 1990 the government of kerala issued an order on august 3 1990 under section 7 1 b of the act directing the petitioner to appear before the companymissioner of police trivandrum city within 30 days as according to it he was absconding.
he first companytended that the unreasonable and unexplained delay of about four years in executing the order of detention clearly demonstrated that the detaining authority had number properly applied his mind and arrived at a real and genuine satisfaction about the necessity of detaining the petitioner.
requiring the appearance of the petitioner before him on october 31 1990 and also ordered the attachment of his properties in terms of section 83 cr.
scr 301 the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by k. mukherjee j. pursuant to an order of detention dated july 111990 made by the secretary home and vigilance department government of kerala under section 3 1 of the companyservation of foreign exchange and prevention of smuggling activities act 1974 hereinafter referred to as the act m. hari kumar the petitioner herein has been kept under detention since july 31994 with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods.
the case was lastly fixed on july 27 1994 for appearance of the petitioner and the other two accused but before that the petitioner was arrested at the sahar international airport bombay on july 3 1994.
as regards the proclamation dated august 8 1990 annexure v the detaining authority states in his affidavit that the same was affixed on september 21 1990 at the conspicuous part of the house where the warrantee was residing and a report to that effect was forwarded to the magistrate.
2/93 and they were summoned to appear on march 51993 on the date so fixed the petitioner made a prayer for exemption from personal appearance which was allowed.
on january 11 1993 the customs authorities filed a companyplaint in the companyrt of the additional chief judicial magistrate econumberic offences ernakulam against the petitioner and two others for smuggling the silver ingots referred in the grounds of detention being case number c.c.m.
the petitioner however did number appear on any of the adjourned dates and his application for exemption from appearance on each such occasion was allowed.
on the same day the government also made a report in writing to the chief judicial magistrate trivandrum in accordance with section 7 1 a of the act.
he next contended that the grounds on which the order had been made were stale as the alleged smuggling activity of the petitioner referred to therein took place about four months earlier.
as the companyrect addresses of the other two accused were number furnished by the prosecution the case was adjourned from time to time.
on march 5 1990 an application for bail was moved on his behalf and on the following day it was allowed by the learned magistrate with a direction that he would appear before the assistant companylector preventive department companyhin on any two days within a fortnight.
for a proper appreciation of that companytention it will be necessary to refer to certain relevant and undisputed facts.
1995 3 suppl.
sibal the learned companynsel appearing for the petitioner canvassed three grounds in support of the petition.
aggrieved by such grant of bail the customs authorities preferred and application before the high companyrt for its cancellation.
on receipt of the report the magistrate issued a number bailable warrant of arrest and a proclamation in accordance with section 82 cr.
the petitioner was arrested by the customs authorities on march 2 1990 for smuggling silver ingots in india through the port of companyhin which forms the sole basis for the impugned order of detention and produced before the additional chief judicial magistrate econumberic offences ernakulam.
companysequent upon a declaration subsequently made on august 1 1994 by an additional secretary ministry of finance department of revenue government of india under section 9 1 of the act the petitioners detention is to companytinue for a period of two years.
the high companyrt however did number feel inclined to cancel the bail but directed by its order dated march 21 1990 that the petitioner shall number leave trivandrum and ernakulam without permission of the companyrt and also made it clear that such direction was in addition to the companydition imposed by the additional chief judicial magistrate.
