TMI Blog1981 (9) TMI 295X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. In exercise of powers conferred on it by sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), the appellant passed the order of detention dated 7th May 1979 against the respondent on the grounds that the respondent and three others, namely, Hasan Haji Ismail Subhania, Gulam Hussain Hasan Subhania and Salemamad Allarakha Jasraya were found in a trawler containing eight packages with 4,645 contraband wrist watches valued at ₹ 10,48,700.00. The petitioner and Salemamad were members of the crew. Hasan Haji was the owner of the trawler and his son, Gulam Hussein, was the tindal of the, vessel. They were interpreted by the Customs Aut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing for the respondent as amicus curiae, raises a preliminary objection The objection is that in view of the fact that the maximum period of detention mentioned in Section 10 of the Act has expired, and as such the appeal has become infructuous. It may be mentioned, to appreciate the preliminary objection, that the order of detention against the respondent was made on 7th May, 1979 and this appeal was being heard on 15th September, 1981, which was beyond two years. Section 10 of the Act is in the following terms: The maximum period for which any person may be detained in pursuance of any detention order to which the provisions of section 9 do not apply and which has been confirmed under clause (f) of section 8 shall be a period of one y ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay be, as mentioned in Section 10 will run from the date of his actual detention, and not from the date of the order of detention. If he has served a part of the period of detention, he will have to serve out the balance. The preliminary objection is overruled. 5. Now to turn to the merit. The order of High Court is clearly erroneous. The High Court has misdirected itself to its jurisdiction to inquire into the order of detention by an authority. The High Court, accepting the contention of the counsel of the detenu, before it has held that there was no material on record to prove knowledge of the detenu with the contraband goods in the vehicle. By implication, the High Court has erroneously imported the rule of criminal jurisprudence tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
