TMI Blog2004 (9) TMI 386X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tried to mislead the authorities by the above act of his. Thus in agreement with the stand taken by the respondent-State that undated and unsigned representation cannot be treated as a representation within the meaning of Article 22(5) of the Constitution requiring immediate attention of the authorities concerned. - CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1033 OF 2004 - - - Dated:- 17-9-2004 - N. SANTOSH HEGDE AND S.B. SINHA, JJ. Ms. Sangeeta Bhyana and Amalan Kumar Ghosh for the Appellant. H.W. Dhabe, S.S. Shinde and Ravindra K. Adsure for the Respondent. JUDGMENT N. Santosh Hegde, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Leave granted. 3. This is an appeal filed against the judgment and order of the High Court of J ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of these persons came to be challenged by way of writ petitions before the High Court. Criminal Writ Petition filed challenging the detention of Tilak Raj Sharma came to be allowed by the High Court as per its order dated 19th September, 2003 wherein among other things the High Court came to the conclusion that there was no application of mind by the detaining authority to certain material facts as also on the ground that the detention being based on a single incident was liable to be quashed. 5. The appellant in his writ petition before the High Court has raised various grounds including the ground of single incident based on which the detention order of co-detenu of Tilak Raj Sharma was quashed. It was also urged that the benefit gi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e at the outset that there is no statutory provision against detaining a person based on a single incident provided the detaining authority had material before it to come to a reasonable opinion that from the surroun-ding circumstances coupled with the incident in question a satisfac- tion as to the future illegal activities of the detenu could be inferred. This is clear from the very judgment sought to be relied upon by the learned counsel in the case of Chowdarapu Raghunandan v. State of Tamil Nadu JT 2002 (3) SC 110 wherein at para 13 of the said judgment this Court held that in an appropriate case, an inference could legitimately be drawn even from a single incident of smuggling that the person may indulge in smuggling activity but ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ning authority to come to a legitimate satisfaction that the detenu in this case would indulge in similar activities of smuggling currency in future also. In this regard, it is seen from the material placed on record that the detenu had a work permit to work in UAE but on enquiry it was found that he was neither working in UAE nor was a regular resident of UAE. From the material placed before the detaining authority, it is noticed that these detenu had travelled abroad number of times and also he had made it a practice to travel between Delhi - Bombay - Ahmedabad in a particular manner, that is, he would take a domestic flight of Indian Airlines from Delhi to Bombay and in Bombay he will change over an international flight which touches Ahm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt the High Court came to the conclusion that there was a non application of mind. While in the present case in the counter filed before this Court the department specifically adverted to the said error and stated that that was a typographical error which should be ignored and it was also contended that by such error the opinion formed by the detaining authority did not, in any manner, get vitiated. The High Court accepted this argument and we find no reason to differ from the same. We are also of the opinion that this argument pointed out in the grounds of detention has not, in any manner, prejudiced the detenu in making his representation. We do not think that the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel in support of her contention c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity and the State Government had failed to satisfy the Hon ble Court on the aforesaid issues." 14. In the counter affidavit filed in this regard on behalf of the detaining authority, it is stated that the appellant had submitted an unsigned and undated representation jointly addressed to the Advisory Board, detaining authority, the State Government and the Central Government and the same was received by the Government along with a copy of the report of the Advisory Board on 11-12-2003. After explaining the time taken for considering the said representation in the said counter affidavit, it is stated that it was rejected on 17-12-2003 and the order of detention was confirmed on 20-12-2003. The affidavit further states that the representa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
