Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1989 (2) TMI 412

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... vent the detenu from engaging in keeping and transporting smuggled goods. 3. The short facts which led to the detention are as follows : On 13-1-1988 at 06.45 hours, the Superintendent of Customs and Central Excise, Head quarters, Preventive II Belgaum and his staff accompanied by witnesses entered the second class Bogie No. 6738 of Bombay Bangalore Udyan Express train No. 129 which had arrived at the Gulbarga Railway station on information and reasonable belief that one passenger sitting on Seat No. 32 of the said bogie was carrying smuggled goods with him. The detenu was found actually sitting as stated above and disclosed his name and address and he was found carrying one brown colour rexine bag. He produced a second class train ti .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . 5. The first point which emerged for our consideration is, whether this Court has got jurisdiction to entertain this petition ? 6. A two fold argument was put forth by the learned counsel for the respondents. He stated that since the seizure was effected in Karnataka, the Karnataka High Court alone would have jurisdiction and the fact that the order was served upon the petitioner would not be of any consequence. In this connection, he relied on a decision of the Supreme Court reported in State of Rajasthan v. M/s. Swaika Properties [1985]3SCR598 where in it was held as follows : 'The mere service in the State of West Bengal of notice under S. 52(2) of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act (5 of 1959) on the owner of a land situ .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... w ground of attack against the legality of detention or custody has arisen after the decision of the first petition and (also) where for some exceptional reason or ground has been omitted in an earlier petition, in appropriate circumstances, the High Court, will hear the second petition on such a ground for ends of justice. In the last case, it is only a ground which existed at the time of the earlier petition, and was omitted from it that will be considered. Second petition will not be competent on the same ground merely because an additional argument is available to urge with regard to the same. We are at a loss to understand how this observation will help the case of the petitioner. It has been made clear in the judgment itself that a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e considered with due diligence. The order of detention is one which can be suspended and revoked at any time either by the authority who passed the order of detention or by any superior authority as provided under S. 11 of the Act. In fact, as soon as the order of detention is passed by the State Government or by the officer empowered by the State Government, it shall within 10 days, forward to the Central Government, a report in respect of the order as mentioned in S. 3 of the Act. Therefore, apart from the constitutional representation which had to be considered with utmost diligence, it is open to the petitioner to file as many representations as he thinks useful to put forward his case. The delay in considering the case will not be vie .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... matter. If the detenu has sent his representation to a person other than the one mentioned in the grounds of detention, he should himself be blamed for the delay which might have occurred in the transit of the representation. We see no ground to accept this contention and this contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is, therefore, rejected. 12. The next contention is that the plea of non-supply of the documents and the prejudice that the detenu suffered on account of that was not taken in the additional affidavit filed by the detenu in which he referred to the third representation. It has to be remembered that the additional affidavit came into existence upon the respondents stating that his second representation was not si .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates