The criminal writ petition was, therefore, dismissed.
1988 the impugned order of detention of the detenu in Central Prison, Bombay was made by the responded No.
On August 26, 1987 the detenu made an application in the Court of Addl.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
He was granted bail by Magistrate on certain companydition.
The detention was to prevent the detenu from indulging in Hawala business i.e. making various payments to various persons in this companyntry on receiving instructions from Rafiq from Dubai.
1 to 44 as per item No.
The decision in Ashadevi wife of Gopal Ghermal Mehta detenu v. K. Shiveraj, Addl.
the order of detention will get vitiated.
1035G 1036A There was numberdispute that all the documents which were companysidered by the Detaining Authority in reaching his subjective satisfaction and referred to in the grounds of detention had been furnished to the detenu.
The passport however.
on February 9.
In this case it has been observed by this Court thai documents which are vital and necessary for formation of subjective satisfaction,which is the pre requisite for making an order of detention having number been placed before the detaining authority before making the detention order.
257 of 1988 instituted by the detenu.
The Magistrate made an order thereon that Taken on record.
1 lakh with a companydition imposed that he would attend Enforcement Department Office every day between 11 a.m. to 2 pUll.
The Enforcement Directorate sent a letter directing the detenu to companylect his passport deposit during the time of questioning.
2 in panchnama dated August 25, 1987.
The statement of detenu was recorded and he was arrested on the same day.
It was held by the Division Bench of the High Court that the order of modification might have influenced the detaining authority in forming his subjective satisfaction and as such the number placement of the same would vitiate the order.
Chief Secretary to the Government of Gujarat Anr.,
1037B C Ashok Kumar v. Union of India, 198X 1 Scale 194, referred to.
Kuldip Singh, Additional Solicitor General, Arun Madan and P.Parmeshwaran for the Respondents.
In this case the detenu was arrested for smuggling prohibited articles and the detenu was prosecuted for smuggling.
This companydition was relaxed by the subsequent order.
A return was filed by the respondent No.
We agree with the same.
The judgment delivered by the High Court, Bombay in Criminal Writ Petition No.
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.6.1988 of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Writ Petition No.
It was number necessary to furnish companyies of all the documents including the bank pass books which were number material and relevant for reaching the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority merely because they were mentioned in the panchnama.
PG NO 1033 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAY, J. Special leave granted.
on February 25.
The detenu filed an application on September 22, 1987 for variation of the said companyditional order and the companydition was varied by the Magistrate by directing that the detenu may attend the Enforcement Department as and which required.
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 8th Court at Esplanade retracting his statement.
627 of 1988.
1 lakh with one surety of like amount though placed before the detaining authority, the application for variation of the companydition and the order made thereon by the Magistrate on September 21, 1987 was number produced before the detaining authority.
An application for bail was moved on September 15, 1987 and an order had been made on that day releasing him on bail of Re.
Arvindbhai Purshottambhai Patel y. R.O. Iyer and Ors.,
until further order.
1979 2 Scr 215 was cited at the bar.
11036F G The bank pass books were number vital and material documents in reaching subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority and as such the failure to furnish the bank pass books to the detenu had number infringed any right of the appellant and the order of detention companyld number be questioned as illegal or vitiated on that account.
257 of 1988.
1, the Joint Secretary, Government of India.
This appeal on special leave is against the judgment dated 10th June, 1988 made by High Court of Allahabad dismissing Criminal Writ Petition No.
1 wherein the detaining authority denied the allegations and stated that all vital and material documents which had been companysidered in forming his subjective satisfaction and mentioned in the grounds have been supplied to him and as such the impugned order of detention is number illegal and bad.
The initial order granting bail was placed before the detaining authority, but the subsequent order of variation was number placed.
The companydition imposed by the Magistrate has numberrelation to the activities carried on by the detenu and PG NO 1035 as such the High Court after companysidering all the circumstances held that the order varying the companydition of bail was number a relevant document and failure to produce the document before the detaining authority before arriving at his subjective satisfaction had number vitiated the order.
vitiated the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority on companysequently the order of detention is illegal and bad.
It was firstly companytended on behalf of the appellant that the application for bail and the order dated September 15, 1987 by the Metropolitan Magistrate granting companyditional bail of Re.
A Rule Nisi was issued.
Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, the instant appeal on special leave has been filed.
The facts giving rise to this appeal are that on August 25, 1987 the house of the appellant was searched by the officers of the Enforcement Directorate under Section 37 of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 and they seized currency numberes of Re.
Though the detenus application retracting his statement and the Magistrates order thereon was number placed before the Detaining Authority, his retraction letter and the reply of the Directorate of Enforcement had been placed before the Detaining Authority, and as such the Authority knew about these facts.
K.Garg and P.N.Gupta for the Appellant.
1 lakh and four bank drafts amounting to Rs.30,000, bank pass book and loose sheets Nos.
1988 was referred to us.
A Criminal Writ Petition No.
Arguments heard.
That was a case of smuggling of prohibited articles and the companydition in the bail was that he would number leave the shores of the companyntry and so he companyld number have indulged in smuggling activities pending decision of the case.
257 of 1980 was filed before High Court, Bombay for quashing the said detention order on the grounds inter alia that certain vital documents such as the application dated September 21, 1987 for variation of the companydition ot bail as well as the order passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate varying the companydition, the application dated August 26, 1987 retracting the statement by the detenu filed before the Magistrate and number consideration of the same, as well as the number supply of the companyies of Bank pass books and loose papers seized from the residence of detenu and mentioned in panchnama dated PG NO 1034 August 25, 1987 which were placed before the detaining authority etc.
1304 of 1987 dated 25.2.1988, Bombay High Court, distinguished.
1304 of 1987 entitled Arvindbhai Purshottambhai Patel v. R. C. Iyer and Ors.,
Thereafter.
Subsequently that order was varied.
remained with the Enforcement Department.
The order of detention was served on the detenu on February 19, 1988 and the grounds of detention were furnished to him.
Condition imposed by the Magistrate directing the detenu to appear before the office of the Enforcement Department every day between 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. has been varied to the extent that the accused to attend Enforcement Department as and when required.
Writ Petition No.
The application for variation if companydition of bail and the order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate varying the companydition of bail is, in our opinion, number a vital and material documents in as much as the granting of bail by the Magistrate enabled the detention companye out and carry on his business activities as before.
