TMI Blog2005 (11) TMI 465X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e been considered by the detaining authority before passing an order of detention. Since relevant material was withheld from the detaining authority, the order of detention must be struck down as being illegal. We accordingly, quash the order of detention. We should not be understood to have laid down a broad proposition to the effect that a letter addressed to any officer of any Department of the Government would amount to service thereof on the State. It depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. In the facts of this case, we have found that the detenu addressed the letter of retraction to a responsible officer of the Department of Customs and in the circumstances he had no choice in the matter, as he could not anticipate that a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ollow space of the picture tube, 110 in number, of Sony Erricson T610 and 15 cellphones of Samsung SGH E415. The cellphones were valued at ₹ 16,25,000/-. The said cellphones had not been declared by the appellant. It is the case of the respondent that the appellant gave a voluntary statement admitting his guilt and, therefore, he was arrested on 29.12.2003 and remanded to judicial custody. The case of the appellant is that on 6.1.2004 he gave a letter retracting his so called voluntary statement made on 28.12.2003 and alleging that the same had been secured from him by applying third degree methods and by coercion, and that the contraband did not belong to him but belonged to some other person, and he was merely carrying the T.V ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondents is that the letter was not addressed to the concerned authority. According to the respondents the concerned authority in this case was the sponsoring authority namely, the Additional Director General, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Chennai. According to the respondents, the letter was never delivered in the office of the sponsoring authority and therefore, there was no proper communication by the appellant. It was submitted that the appellant ought to have given the letter to the Superintendent of Jail who would have sent it to the concerned authority, but he chose to send the letter through his Advocate. The appellant on the other hand, urged before us that for non-consideration of this relevant document the order o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... date, to the knowledge of the appellant detenu there was no sponsoring authority. The question then arises as to whom the letter should have been addressed. It appears that the detenu had handed over the letter of retraction to his Advocate, who got it delivered in the office of the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication-AIR), Customs House, Chennai-1, though it was addressed to the Superintendent of Customs (Air), Customs House, Chennai-1. It appears that both the offices are located in the same building namely, the Custom House at Chennai. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we cannot say that the letter was not communicated to the appropriate authority because on that date, the appellant had no knowledge th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
