TMI Blog2007 (4) TMI 369X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Constitution of India, 1950 for setting aside the order of detention. In March, 2006, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 146 of 2006 was filed under article 32 of the Constitution for quashing and setting aside the order of detention during the pendency of Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 2930 of 2005 before the Bombay High Court. On 26-6-2006, this Court disposed of the petition under article 32 of the Constitution directing the High Court to dispose of the matter within a period of one month and that is how the impugned order dated 6-7-2006 was passed. Looked at from any angle the order of the High Court does not suffer from any infirmity and the appeal deserves dismissal which we direct. - CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 533 OF 2007 - - - Dated:- 11-4-200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resaid two statements were made on the basis of following position : The Enforcement Directorate, Mumbai carried out certain search of the residential premises of one Pravin Popatlal Shah under section 37 of the Foreign Exchange and Regulation Act, 1973 (in short the FERA ). On 16-1-1997 residence of detenu was searched by some officers of the same Directorate. Then detention order dated 27-8-1998 was passed. The show-cause notice was given to the detenu on 18-1-1999 for contravention of the provisions of section 9(1)( a ) of the FERA. The Detenu submitted his written explanation on 30-3-1999 and adjudication order dated 29-11-1999 was passed by the Special Director of Enforcement. 6. The High Court analysed the position of law laid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he criminal court based on police reports on the validity of the detention order against the same person based on the same charge in the context of a contention of a non-application of the authority s mind? . . . . ****** The discharge or acquittal by a criminal court is not necessarily a bar to preventive detention on the same facts for "security" purposes. But if such discharge or acquittal proceeds on the footing that the charge if false or baseless, preventive detention on the same condemned facts may be vulnerable on the ground that the power under the MISA has been exercised in a mala fide or colourable manner." (p. 664) 10. In Bhawarlal Ganeshmalji v. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1979 SC 541 it was observed that where the de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e our discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India by allowing Appellant to raise new grounds but, in our opinion, we may have to do so as an order of detention may have to be considered from a different angle. It may be true that the period of detention is over. It may further be true that Appellant had remained in detention for the entire period but it is one thing to say that the writ of Habeas Corpus in this circumstances cannot issue but it is another thing to say that an order of detention is required to be quashed so as to enable the detainee to avoid his civil liabilities under SAFEMA as also protect his own reputation. It is a trite law that all documents which are not material are not necessary to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
