TMI Blog1988 (6) TMI 126X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of the petitioner with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the augmentation of foreign exchange. The order of detention was served on January 5, 1988 and the grounds of detention were furnished. The grounds recite that on information received that the detenu had purchased Saudi Riyal 5,500/- and United States dollars 500/- in blackmarket and the detenu was likely to proceed to Singapore, surveillance was kept at the Airport and the detenu was searched on September 13; 1987, while leaving the country. The foreign currency was found on the person of the detenu and his statement was recorded under Section 39 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. The detenu admitted that he had purchased the foreign currency ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the grounds furnished to the detenu set out the date of departure and the date of arrival on those occasions. Mr. Karmali turged that the xerox copy of the passport which was furnished to the detenu along with the grounds of detention is not legible and it is difficult to ascertain whether the claim of the Detaining Authority that the detenu visited Singapore on eleven occasions and the date of departure and the date of arrival are truly reflected in the passport. The petitioner has specifically claimed that several pages of the passport which reflect the dates of departure and arrival are blank and illegible. In answer to the petition, the Detaining Authority has filed return and it is claimed that legible copies of the passport were supp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble the detenu to complain that opportunity to make effective representation was denied. What had happened in the case before the Division Bench was that the detenu had gone abroad carrying foreign exchange on sixteen occasions. The detenu admitted in his statement that he did go on sixteen occasions and did not dispute the date of departure and the date of arrival ascertained by the Detaining Authority. In face of this admission, the Division Bench declined to accept the contention that the opportunity to make effective representation was denied because some pages and the entries in the passport s copy which was supplied to the detenu were blank or illegible. The decision given in that case under peculiar facts has no application whatsoeve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
