TMI Blog1987 (8) TMI 105X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pursuance of the detention order the detenu was actually taken into custody on 29th of September, 1986. 2. The brief facts about the incident, as alleged are that one Govinda Sarkar, a national of Bangladesh allegedly brought five pieces of foreign marked gold and handed over the same to the detenu Somnath Kundu and the detenu in his turn handed over the smuggled gold to Swapan Kundu. This gold was being transported from Bashir Hatt to Calcutta on a scooter allegedly belonging to one Monoranjan Kundu, who was accompanied by Swapan Kundu and Samir Nandy at the time the scooter was intercepted and the smuggled gold was recovered. On the basis of these facts, the detaining authority came to the conclusion that the detenu Somnath Kundu ought ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing authority that the detenu was engaged in transporting the goods. The grounds of detention indicate that the main allegation against him is that he received the smuggled goods thereby meaning that he was engaged either in abetting the smuggling of goods or was dealing in smuggled goods. Admittedly, he was not caught with the smuggled goods in his possession in the process of transportation. The case of the respondents is that he after receiving the smuggled goods from one Govinda Sarkar handed it over to Swapan Kundu and it was actually Swapan Kundu together with Samir Nandy and Manoranjan Kundu who were caught in the process of transporting the smuggled goods. This clearly goes to show that there has been non-application of mind by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he detaining authority nor was this fact taken into consideration by the detaining authority. The contention is that if this fact were brought to the notice of the detaining authority, the detaining authority may or may not have passed the detention order. In this regard, reliance is placed by Mr. Trilok Kumar on Sri Ram Goel v. Union of India and others, 1984 Crl. Law Journal 1048 a Division Bench judgment of this court. In that case also the point in issue was that when, prior to the passing of detention order prosecution has been launched than whether the proceedings which had taken place in that prosecution, can be regarded as relevant for purposes of deciding as to whether the detention order should be passed or not. The Division Bench ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
