TMI Blog1992 (8) TMI 287X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in exercise of the powers conferred under Sub-section (i) of Section 3 of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') with a view to preventing the detenu from engaging in transporting smuggled goods. 4. In the wee hours of 22nd July, 1990, the custom officers posted at the Sahar International Airport, Bombay found two special equipment boxes bearing No. 20 and 21 being abnormally heavy which boxes were kept in the special compartment in the bulk cargo hold on the rear side of the aircraft which had earlier arrived from Tokyo as Flight No. AI 309. On suspicion, the seals of the boxes were broken. On opening the special equipment box No. 20 in the presen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inclusive of the abovesaid Pol under Section 108 of the Customs Act on 22.7.90. The entire contraband was seized and a panchnama in the presence of witnesses was prepared. 5. The detenu and the said Pol were arrested and produced before the Magistrate on bail on 3.9.90 and were remanded to the judicial custody. However, they came out on bail on 3.9.90 and 12.9.90 respectively. The impugned order of detention as against the detenu was passed on 11th January, 1991 which order was served on the detenu on 12th January, 1991 alongwith the grounds of detention and list of documents annexed thereto. 6. On being aggrieved by the order of detention, the present petitioner (the wife of the detenu) filed a writ petition which was numbered as Wri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... three earlier occasions indulged in such activities and that it is inferred from those statements that the detenu had established links at the Airport and that but for the suspension order, it would not have been possible from preventing the detenu to enter into the prohibited areas and that the non placing of this suspension order has not caused any prejudice to the detenu. According to him, the order of detention was not based on such a document. After carefully going through the counter-affidavit, we do not see any force in the submission made by the learned Counsel. Hence this submission is rejected. 9. The second submission made by the learned Counsel is that the High Court has failed to consider the statement of retraction of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
