Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
The authorities cannot and may number in every case salvage the antecedents but even a solitary incident may manifest the potentialities of a detenu in the activities of smuggling.
On 25.10.90 he landed at Trivandrum Airport from Male.
This was the material before the detaining authority on the basis of which he was satisfied that there were companypelling reasons to pass the detention order.
It is for the detaining authority to derive the necessary satisfaction on the basis of the materials placed before him.
However, when they are number referred to or relied upon, the number supply does number affect the detention.
While he was in jail he made an application for granting of bail under Section 437 Cr.
Learned companynsel also relied on the judgment of this Court in Abdul Razak Abdul Wahab Sheikh v.S.N. Sinha, Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad and Another 1989 2 SCC 222.
443 C, 453 C 4.2 Failure to supply the bail applications and the orders refusing bail did number in any manner prejudice the detenus from making representations particularly when they were fully aware of the companytents of the applications made by them and also the refusal orders.
Therefore, there was every likelihood of the detenus moving for bail and getting released on bail.
K. Ganguli, Ms. Kitty Kumar Manglam, Ms. A. Subhashini and T.T. Kunhikannan for the Respondents.
Thereafter he was shifted to the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magis trate Economic Offences , Ernakulam.
That was a case of public order and after referring to some of the earlier decisions including the decision of the Constitution Bench in Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate, Burdwan, 1964 4 SCR 921, this Court companysidered the companytention i.e. since the detenu was in custody at the time of service of the order of detention there was numbermaterial to disclose necessitating the detention.
It is also evident that the application for bail filed by the detenu was rejected by the Designated Court on May 13, 1988.
After customs clearance the petitioner proceeded to Hotel Geeth at Trivandrum and while he was staying there, some officers of Customs came to the room and companyducted a search.
The petitioner made a representation and it was rejected.
After the arrest he was produced in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trivandrum and was remanded to judicial custody for a period of 14 days.
The grounds of detention alongwith the list of documents annexed thereto were served in time.
453 B C As mentioned in the grounds of detention, there was relevant material on the basis of which the detaining au thority was satisfied that there was companypelling necessity to pass the detention orders.
On 25.10.90 he landed at Trivandrum Airport from Male and was moving towards the exit gate of the Customs Import Baggage Hail.
105 of 1991 The petitioner detenu is a foreign national being a resident of Republic of Maldives.
Harjinder Singh and R.N. Joshi for the Petitioners.
But the officers took the petitioner by force to the Customs Import Baggage Hall and it is alleged that on examination, 30 gold biscuits of foreign origin were seized from either side of the handle inside the lock system of the blue companyour suitcase which is alleged to be of petitioner.
105 of 1991 are raised in this petition also.
p. 455 B C 5.3 In the instant case, in the grounds of detention, the manner in which the gold biscuits were companycealed was mentioned and that itself suggested that the detenus must have been indulging in smuggling activities.
While the petitioner was in jail, an order of detention was passed under Section 3 1 of the COFEPOSA Act by the Secretary to the Government, Govt.
p. 440 E 4.1 In the instant case, in the companynter affidavit it was stated that the period of remand to the judicial custody was to expire the next day after the detention.
The same points as in Writ Petition Criminal No.
of Kerala, Home SSA Department, on 7.11.90 and the same was served on the petitioner on 8.11.90.
First, we shall deal with Writ Petition Crl.
Writ Petition Criminal No.
The grounds of detention alongwith the list of documents annexed thereto were served in time.
He was intercepted by the Air Customs Officers and on examination he was found to be carrying 50 gold biscuits of foreign origin which were seized from either side of the handle inside the lock system of he red companyour suit case belonging to the petitioner.
In this case, the detenu was in jail custody in companynection with a criminal case and the order of detention was served on him in jail.
It is diffi cult to companyprehend precisely the manner in which a detenu with certain potentialities may likely to indulge in the activities of smuggling.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by JAYACHANDRA REDDY, J. Common questions arise for companysideration in these two writ petitions filed under Arti cle 32 of the Constitution of India seeking writ of habeas companypus for quashing the orders of detention and for immedi ate release of the detenus.
These materials showed that the detaining authority was number only aware that the detenus were in jail but also numbered the circumstances on the basis of which he was satisfied that they were likely to companye out on bailand companytinue to indulge in the smuggling activities.
The petitioner made a representation stating that since his bail application has been rejected and since he was in jail and his passport was also seized, there is numbercompelling necessity for such a detention.
C. on 29.10.90 but it was rejected on 2.11.90 by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Economic Offences , Ernakulam.
The petition ers statement was recorded under Section 108 of the Cus toms Act, 1962 wherein he is alleged to have companyfessed the guilt.
was companyfined in jail an order of detention was passed under Section 3 1 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange Prevention of Smug gling Activities Act, 1974 COFEPOSA Act for short by the Secretary to the Government, Government of Kerala, Home SS A Department on 7.11.90 and the same was served on the petitioner on 8.11.90.
105 106 of 1991.
Thereafter he was shifted to the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Economic Offences , Ernakulam.
While he was in jail he made an application for grant of bail under Section 473 Cr.
p. 443 B C ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition Crl.
p. 443 D E 5.2 The potentialities of the detenu as gathered from his act of smuggling form basis for detention.
While the petitioner.
105 of 1991.
The petition ers statement was recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 wherein he is alleged to have companyfessed the guilt.
Having carefully companysidered the submission of the learned companynsel we are unable to say that there were numbercompelling reasons.
106 of 1991 In this Writ Petition also the petitioner is a foreign national, being resident of Republic of Maldives.
Nothing was recovered.
The petitioners passport and other documents were also seized by the Air Customs Officer, Trivandrum.
His passport and other documents were also seized.
Writ Petition Crl.
After the arrest he was produced in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trivandrum and was remanded to judicial custody for a period of 14 days.
P.C. on 29.10.90 but it was rejected on 2.11.90 by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Economic Offences , Ernakulam.
453 C D 5.1 Even a solitary incident may speak volumes about the potentialities of the detenu and merely on the ground that there were numberantecedents the detention order cannot be quashed.
It is also number disputed that numberapplication for bail was made for release of the detenu before the order of detention was served on him on May 23, 1988.
