On 29th of April, 1986, the Advisory Board met to company sider the propriety of the detention order.
530 of 1986 Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India Ram Jethmalani, A.K. Sharma and Ms. Rani Jethmalani for the Petitioner.
1 herein.
The Board intimated the detenus legal Adviser that it would number examine the said witnesses but would instead permit the detenu to produce their affidavits.
Annexure C attached to the Writ Petition shows that the detenu filed an application before the Advisory Board on 29th April, 1986, requesting the Board to examine the wit nesses brought in his defence both on 29 4 1986 and 1 5 1986 and without making any request for an adjournment.
Thus an opportunity was lost to him that day to examine the witnesses in rebuttal.
The accusation against the detenu is that he brought these articles during the various trips that he made to Hong Kong between 10/12/1985 and 19/3/1986.
2466 of 1986 From the Judgment and Order dated 26.8.1986 of the Delhi High Court in Crl.
The detenu was served with the grounds of detention on the same date.
The High Court companysid ered this aspect of the case and justified the rejection of this request on the plea that the detenu companyld number waste the time of the Adviso ry Board by asking the Board to record oral evidence.
An order of deten tion was passed against him on 31st March, 1986 by the Additional Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue the Respondent No.
These 5 witnesses were present when the matter was to be heard by the Advisory Board on 29th April, 1986.
170/86 filed by Shri Harbans Lal father of the detenu Om Prakash.
The detenu wanted to prove that the premises in which the alleged companytraband goods were found was number in his possession and that in fact he lived at some other place.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Special Leave petition Criminal No.
In support of this case he wanted to examine five witnesses before the Advisory Board.
The said witnesses were therefore brought again on the 1st of May, 1986, when the Board resumed its hearing and an application was made to the Board to examine them.
The Writ Petition is also by the same person.
This fact was made known to the Advisory Board.
The records of proceedings of the Advisory Board were forwarded to the Central Government and the order of detention was companyfirmed.
Special Leave granted.
These premises were searched by the officers of the Direc torate of Revenue Intelligence in the early hours of 20/3/1986, as a result of which foreign goods worth Rupees Twentyone lakhs and odd were recovered.
Both these matters are being disposed of by this companymon Judgment.
The case against the detenu is that he was in possession of a large quantity of companytraband good.s hidden in his premises No.
Writ No.
170 of 1986.
The Advisory Board declined this request.
and Writ Petition Criminal No.
The cases relate to the detention of Shri Om Prakash under Section 3 1 of the COFEPOSA Act.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KHALID, J. The Special Leave Petition is directed against the Judgment dated 26.8.1986 of a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in Criminal Writ No.
5/23, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi.
C. Mahajan, A.S. Rao, Ms. Halida Khatun and C.V. Subba Rao for the Respondents.
