TMI Blog1988 (11) TMI 116X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner under COFEPOSA Act on March 5, 1988. The grounds given in the detention order Annexure P.1/A are as under : "1. That you Tarsem Chand mentioned above is employed as a vendor by M/s. Mehta Bishan Das Son. On 11-2-1988, one Pak National named Mohd. Akram who used to come earlier also and who was known to you came by Delhi-Attari Special Train and handed over to you one polythene bag containing two bottles of scotch whisky (Johney Walker Red Label) and asked you to take care of three bags containing real pearls, emeralds, real pearl setting, synthetic stones and jerkins etc. You bargained with him and agreed to keep the polythene bag containing two bottles of whisky and to take care of three bags kept near your Rehri. You, as admitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls, emeralds, real pearl settings, synthetic stones and jerkins etc. collectively valued at Rs. 5,14,257/-. These goods were again repacked and sealed in your presence and two independent witnesses. 3. That in your statement dated 11-2-1988 and 12-2-1988 you admitted that you had bargained with Shri Mohd. Akram to accept Rs. 1500/- to keep in your safe custody one polythene bag and three bags containing real pearls, foreign made liquor, synthetic stones etc. which were meant to be for illegal export out of India. 4. On account of the above-said activities I am satisfied that you abetted the attempted smuggling of pearls and other precious stones out of India. 5. Even though adjudication and prosecution proceedings under the Customs Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rsem Chand be detained and kept in custody in Central Jail, Amritsar." On a reading of the grounds, particularly paragraphs which have been extracted above, it is clear that the order of detention was passed as the detaining authority was apprehensive that in case the detenu was released on bail he would again carry on his criminal activities in the area. If the apprehension of the detaining authority was true, the bail application had to be opposed and in case bail was granted, challenge against that order in the higher forum had to be raised. In Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate, Etah and others, A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 315, it was held :- "On a reading of the grounds, particularly the paragraph which we have extracted above, it is clear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
