He was arrested and detained in Dum Dum Central Jail on 6 June 1969.
The Government forwarded the detenus representation to the Advisory Board.
On 29 August 1969, the Governor rejected the petitioners representation.
both of them were detained in Central Prison, Banglaore.
The Court while referring these facts said that there was unaccounted delay of little more than two months in the companysideration of the representation .
under the Mahazar, the officer seized the gold biscuits along with the Indian currency.
In the meantime, the case was referred to the Advisory Board which had its meeting on 20 April 1989.
The representations companyld number be immediately companysidered since they required translation and companylection of information and companyments from different authorities.
On 24 February 1989, the State Government passed two separate orders of detention under Section 3 1 iv of the Act, directing the detention of K.M. Abdulla Kunhi, the companymon petitioner in W.P. Crl.
The companyfirmation of the detention order without the companysideration of representation would be invalid and the subsequent companysideration of the representation would number cure the invalidity of the order of companyfirmation.
542 of 1989 and SLP Crl No 2117 of 1989.
But the Court, however, observed that it is doubtful whether the Governments companysideration of the representation was independent as implicit in the language of Article 22 5 .
2009 of 1989, and B.L. Mohammed Ali, the companymon petitioner in W.P. Crl.
The Advisory Board may hear the detenu at his request.
This question was number raised before the High Court, number in the Writ Petitions before us and hence rejected.
Harjinder singh R.N. Joshi, A. Acharjee, Navin Malhotra, Jagan M. Rao and Raju Ramchandran for the Petitioners.
On 9 March 1989, Mohammed Ali was taken into custody.
Another person called Mohammed Ali was also present inside the room.
Inside the said pouch, there were five gold biscuits of 24 ct.
On 30 June 1969 the Governor referred the case of the petitioner to the Advisory Board.
508 of 1989 and SLP crl.
purity and of foreign origin.
34,800 from the table drawer in the room.
These petitions will number be placed before the Division Bench for final disposal.If the companyfirmation by the Government of the order of the District magistrate is made first and the Government rejects the representation thereafter, such rejection is number an independent companysideration but as the result of its decision to companyfirm the order of detention.
The Advisory Board companysidered the case of the detenu and also the representation and submitted report expressing the opinion that there was sufficient cause for the detention of the person.
There the petitioner was detained by an order dated 5 June 1969 of the District Magistrate, 24 Parganas, West bengal, under Section 3 2 of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition Crl.
On 17 April, 1989, the detenus made representations to the Government.
The officers recovered one Samsonite pouch and some bundles of the Indian currencies amounting to Rs.
The Board companysidered the case of the detenus and reported that there was sufficient cause for their was unexplained delay in companysidering the representation of the detenu.
1979 4 SCC 401 and Om Prakash Bahl Union of India and Ors, W.P. No.
845 of 1979 decided on 15.10.1979 Unreported require re consideration has referred these matters to the Constitution Bench.
The detenu made representation to the appropriate government.
The facts of the case and the principles stated therein may be furnished.
P. Parmeswaran and M. Veerappa for the Respondents.
On or about 23 June 1969, the Government received the representation of the petitioner.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India .
C. Mahajan, B. Parthasarthy.
In both the cases, as in present case the persons were detained under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 the Act .
Doubtless the detention was invalid on this delay alone and the Court companyld have quashed the detention on that ground.
The Government after companysidering that report companyfirmed the order of detention.
It is companyvenient at this point to refer to the statement of law laid down in the aforesaid two cases.
By then the Advisory Board was already companystituted and it was scheduled to meet to companysider the case of the detenu.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J. A Division Bench of this Court while expressing the view that the decisions in J.V. Jain v. Shri Pradhan and Ors.,
508 of 1989 etc.
The Advisory Board made its report on 11 August 1969 to the effect that there was sufficient cause for the detention of the petitioner.
Thereafter, on 12 August 1969, the Governor companyfirmed the order of detention.
The relevant facts of the present case may number be narrated On 1 December, 1988, the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence upon getting information that the companytraband gold has been secreted in the room occupied by K.M. Abdulla Kunhi, searched the room in the presence of independent witnesses.
It appears that the representation of the detenu was number companysidered before companyfirming the detention order and it came to be companysidered and rejected only thereafter in v.J. Jain case this Court observed that the representation of the detenu should be companysidered by the detaining authority as early as possible before any order is made companyfirming the detention.
The District magistrate informed the State Government of his said order on 9 June 1969.
On 14 June 1969, the Governor gave his approval and reported the case of the Central Government.
