TMI Blog1993 (10) TMI 357X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... leting the immigration formalities, he approached the Customs counter for clearance. The Customs authorities opened his briefcase and recovered huge quantities of foreign exchange of various countries, the value of which is estimated at ₹ 38,06,930. On August 27, 1992 he was produced under arrest before the CJM, Barasat and his application for bail was rejected. On September 19, 1992 an order of detention dated September 18, 1992 was served on him in the jail along with the grounds of detention. On October 1, 1992 a declaration under Section 9(1) of the Act was issued and the same was served on the detenu on October 13, 1992. On October 15, 1992 the petitioner made a representation to the Central Government against the declaration but ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ffice on November 2, 1992. The representation was put up before the Joint Secretary on November 3, 1992 and the same was rejected on November 4, 1992. The Finance Secretary recommended the rejection of the representation on November 5, 1992 and finally the Minister for Finance rejected the same on the same day and a memo dated November 6, 1992 was issued to the petitioner intimating him about the rejection. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the delay between October 15, 1992 and November 2, 1992 has not been satisfactorily explained and hence is fatal being violative of Article 22(5) of the Constitution. It is also his submission that the delay of every day has to be explained as held by the courts. He relied o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... p between receipt and disposal of the representation was 28 days but up to the date of service of the order of rejection, the delay amounted to 32 days and the court was not satisfied with the explanation offered and it was only after a delay of 14 days that the representation was disposed of and the only explanation was that some more information was called for and that there were certain holidays in between. The Court held that the delay was unreasonable and the explanation was unsatisfactory. Relying on these observations, the learned counsel submits that in the instant case the period between October 15, 1992 and October 22, 1992 and between October 23, 1992 and November 2, 1992 amounted to undue and unexplained delay. But if we examine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h and it only show that there was no proper application of mind. In this context, the learned counsel relied on the judgment of this Court in Binod Singh v. District Magistrate ((1986) 4 SCC 416 1986 SCC (Cri) 490). We see no force in this submission. We do not think that anything more could have been said by the detaining authority in this context. As a matter of fact the apprehension of the detaining authority came to true as the detenu was released on bail no doubt subject to certain conditions on September 25, 1992. Therefore there are no merits in this appeal. 6. Now coming to the writ petition, the submission is that the law requires that all the relevant materials and vital facts which would have bearing on the issue and would inf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d before the declaring authority or not and if they were not placed, the subjective satisfaction of the declaring authority would be rendered vitiated for non-consideration of the vital documents. The learned counsel, in the instant case, relying on these observations sought to contend that the bail order passed on September 25, 1992 imposing stringent conditions is a vital document. Whether a particular document is vital or not again is an issue which depends on the facts in each case. The detention order itself was passed when the detenu was in jail and the detaining authority noted this fact and being satisfied that there was every possibility of his being released on bail, passed the detention order. If subsequently the detenu is releas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spite of intimation to the advocate in that behalf, the detenu was not produced before the Magistrate and that confessional statements were retracted subsequently while he was in judicial custody and observed that the first two facts had a bearing on the question whether the confessional statements had been extorted under duress. The Court finally observed that the request to have the presence and consultation of a lawyer was turned down on some misconception of legal position and also observed that the fact of retraction would have its own impact on the detaining authority and it was for him to consider whether the confession was made voluntarily and whether the subsequent retraction was an afterthought. The facts, in the instant case, ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
