Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

D.N. Anand Versus Union of India, Ministry of Finance

Criminal Writ Petition No. 663 of 1992 - Dated:- 19-1-1993 - G.S. Chahal, J. For the Appellant : R.S. Ghai, Sr. Advocate, Vinod Sharma Advocate, Harbhagwan Singh, Sr. Advocate and Arun Walia, Advocate For the Respondent : D.D. Sharma, Advocate JUDGMENT G.S. Chahal, J. 1. Darshan Lal Anand (hereinafter called the petitioner) has come to this Court through his brother Shri P.N. Anand in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus by quashing t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ame had been smuggled into India and are liable to confiscation. One back seat of the Maruti Van and bill book of M/s Anand Industries lying in the said premises were also taken into possession as relevant to the inquiry. Sh. A. Sebastian @ A Sharma made a statement to the effect that about 3 years earlier, he had come into contact with one Sh. Tarlok Nath of Delhi in Burma Bazar, Madras. A. Sebastian had assisted Tarlok Nath very often in purchase of smuggled electronic items like VCPs and VCRs .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tion of the godown for keeping smuggled items though it were only Tarlok Nath and Roop Kumar who used to store the articles and remove it from the godown. That A. Sebastian used to transport the goods to a pre-decided place in the market and to sell them out to the customers. The sale proceeds were being handed over, by him to Tarlok Nath or to Roop Kumar and at sometimes to the petitioner. That against five slips all dated December 22, 1991 of the Punjab National Bank drafts of ₹ 49,000/- .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tian, the names of persons who attended the marriage party and made gifts were described and on another page under the heading of Partners, he had, recorded the names of Tarlok Nath, Roop Kumar and the petitioner as partners. Sh. Bakul Vyas, a tenant on the first floor of building No. 12/21 Shakti Nagar, Delhi, made a statement that he had been paying the rent of that building at petitioner's office since 1982. The petitioner admitted that he had purchased the building 12/21, Shakti Nagar, D .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

o be initiated against the petitioner, the Detaining Authority was satisfied that unless prevented, the petitioner will continue indulging in prejudicial activities in future. 3. The petitioner has pleaded inter-alia that he is a resident of H.No. 66, Mall Rood, Ambala Cantt and running his business of country liquor. He has purchased building 12/21, Shakti Nagar, Delhi and rented out the same to A. Sebastian @ A. Sharma. That on the basis or a search and recovery from A. Sebastian, the house of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tigating authorities on April 22, 1992, 27 April, 1992 and May 18, 1992. This interim bail was confirmed vide order Annexure P-3 dated May 4, 1992. That apprehending his detention, he had filed Cr. W. 310/92 which was dismissed by this Court as premature on August 12, 1992. It was after the dismissal of this writ petition that show-cause notice was served on the petitioner and thereafter the impugned order of detention was passed. That the petitioner had no connection with the premises from wher .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the detention order. That the petitioner had moved the Detaining Authority to give clarification and details sought in Annexure P-4 as the same was required by him to make a proper and effective representation, but no reply had been received till date and the same has deprived him of the right to make an effective representation against his detention. The Advisory Board was to hold its sitting on November 20, 1992 and in the absence of reply to Annexure P-4, the petitioner could not make any eff .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

992. The detention order was passed on the same day. It is humanly impossible that the Detaining Authorities could have gone through the entire record before passing the detention order. That no order of detention regarding Rupesh Kumar against whom similar allegations have been made, has been passed till date. 4. The respondents filed their reply to the original petition, but with respect to additional grounds, no reply has been filed although time was granted for the same. It is claimed that i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he order of detention. Firstly that the detention order was passed with delay and secondly that on moving of Annexure P-4, no reply was sent by the Detaining Authorities which interfered with the right of the petitioner to make a proper representation. 6. I find force in the contention of the Id. counsel that there being no prejudicial activity of the petitioner after March 15, 1992, the delay of six months in passing the detention order will cast a grave doubt on the genuineness of the subjecti .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on. No such direction was ever given by this Court. Mere passing an order of stay of arrest of the petitioner was not an order staying the process of passing of detention order, if the Authority so deemed proper. 9. In Lakshman Khatik v. The State of West Bengal, AIR 1974 Supreme Court 1264 the order of detention was held to be invalid where it had been passed after a lapse of about 8 months from the dates of incidents. The relevant portion of that judgment reads: "........Indeed mere delay .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of conviction and sentence for offences committed about 7 months earlier. The authorities concerned must have due regard to the object with which the order is passed and if the object was to prevent disruption of supplies of foodgrains one should think that prompt action in such matters should be taken as soon as incidents like those which are referred to in the grounds have taken place in our opinion the order of detention is invalid." 10. In T.A. Abdul Rehman v. State of Kerala, 1989(2) .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ot; Considering the unexplained delay in passing the order of detention, a serious doubt arises with respect to the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority. 11. According to Annexure P-4, the petitioner had inter alia sought the following information: (i) Inform country of origin of goods at Sr. Nos. 1 & 3 of Annexure to the Panchanama, valuing ₹ 48,51,104/- out of ₹ 53,78,250/- (.) From the Markings, these seem to be of Indian origin being exported to Napal and the U. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version