Subhash Sharma vs Directorate Of Enforcement Government ... on 21 September, 2022
In Ashak Hussain Allah Detha and others (supra), the High Court
of Bombay held in para 7 as under:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 28 (0.68 seconds)Documents citing
Ashak Hussain Allah Detha Alias ... vs Assistant Collector Of Customs (P.), ... on 9 January, 1990
Mirah Decor vs Collector Of Customs on 25 June, 1991
The appellants have acted bona fide because they have been saying from the very beginning that the goods could be used as wall paper. In this connection, reliance was placed on 1990 Vol. 28 ECR 4 (Bom.) Ashak Hussain v. Collector of Customs, Bombay to say that a statement obtained from a person during his detention for interrogation, should be considered as a statement obtained while under arrest. This ratio applies to the statement obtained from Shri R.K. Goenka, according to the appellants. The Ld. Counsel also urged that since there was no mala fide intention, the personal penalty on the appellants is totally unwarranted and the import is also valid since the possibility of the goods being used as wall paper is not relevant for the clearance of the goods against the licence produced for decorative paper for laminates at the point of import. On the question of valuation, the Ld. Counsel pointed out that the details of the market enquiry made by the Department were not disclosed. It was also not shown that the goods imported at Cochin were the same quality. As regards the second show cause notice dated 1-9-1988, it was pointed out that two paragraphs 21 & 22 of the original show cause notice dated 16-1-1988 had been deleted. These contain, inter alia, a proposal to confiscate the goods and impose penalty. With the deletion of these paras by the amending show cause notice, the combined effect of the show cause notices will be that the proposal to confiscate and impose penalty had been deleted whereby rendering the adjudicating proceedings and the order passed thereon invalid. It will also mean that their earlier reply to the show cause notice dated 16-1-1988 had been accepted. Further the basis in the show cause notices for enhancing the value through the price quotation which did not have the name of any party to whom it is sent nor did it contain the name of the item of which the quotation was for and it was a quotation subsequent to the import.
State Of Rajasthan vs Ravishankar Srivastava on 24 June, 2005
In Ashak Hussan Allah Detha v. Asstt. Collector of Customs (P.), Bombay, a Single Judge of Bombay High Court held that the word "arrest" is a term of article. It starts with the arrester taking a person into his custody by action or words restraining him from moving anywhere beyond the arrester's control, and it continues until the person so restrained is either released from custody or, having been brought before a Magistrate, is remanded in custody by the Magistrate's judicial order.
Prem Singh Alias Pappu Papiya vs Union Of India (Uoi) Through Inspector, ... on 15 November, 1994
In Ashak Hussain Allah Detha @ Siddique v. Assistant Collector of Customs (P.) Bombay 1990 Cr LJ 2201 (Bom), it has been held that the Investigation Officer may lawfully detain, a suspect for an offence, but detention in custody for interrogation is not authorised by law. The Investigation Officer may detain a person for an offence only. In cases under the N.D.P.S. Act and Customs Act, the prosecution is, no doubt, entitled to rely upon the statements of the accused record during investigation. But they are not entitled to procure statements by coercion, assault or illegal detention and in such circumstances such a statement cannot be termed as voluntary. A retracted confession may form one of the legal basis for conviction if the court is satisfied that it was true and was made voluntarily, but rule of prudence requires that such a confessional statement cannot be made the sole basis for conviction without any corroboration from independent and distinct evidence.
Pawan Kumar Didwani vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 30 August, 1994
13. A Single Bench decision of Bombay High Court, reported in 1990 Cri LJ 2201 (Ashok Hussain Allah Detha and Anr. v. Assistant Collector of Customs (P), Bombay and Anr.), relied on by Mr. Sen, in my view, does not come to an aid to the writ petitioner (sic). Mr. Sen, relying on paragraph 8 of the said decision contended that under Section 40 of the FERA, Investigating Officers cannot detain a suspect for interrogation as it is not authorised in law. In paragraph 8 of the said decision at page 2205 the Bombay High Court has observed as follows:
Smt. Jahida Bi And Others vs Central Narcotics Bureau on 19 September, 2000
Similar view was also expressed by the High Court of Bombay in case of Ashok Hussain Allah Detah @ Siddique and another Vs. Asstt. Collector of Customs, 1990 Cr.LJ 2201, the Bombay High Court has also ruled that in cases under the NDPS Act and Customs Act the prosecution is, no doubt, entitled to reply upon the statements of the accused recorded during investigation. But they are not entitled to procure statements by coercion, assault or illegal detention and in such circumstances such a statement cannot be termed as voluntary. A retracted confession may form one of the legal basis for conviction if the Court is satisfied that it was true and was made voluntarily, but rule of prudence requires that such a confessional statement cannot be made the sole basis for conviction without any corroboration from independent and distinct evidence."
Hasan Ismail Dalvi vs Narcotic Control Bureau & Anr. on 8 March, 2001
In another judgment in Ashak Hussain v. The Assistant Collector of Customs (P), the applicants were detained from midnight of 20th July, 1989 to 5.20 p.m. of 21st July, 1989 for 17 hours. Their arrests were so recorded that their production before the Magistrate was within 24 hours stipulated by Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India. It was observed :-
Ramu vs State Of Karnataka on 18 April, 1991
6. The first point to be considered is whether the period of stay of the petitioner in the hospital under police surveillance in the hospital can be considered as a period of custody. The learned Government Pleader relied on ASHAK HUSSAIN ALLAH DETHA ALIAS SIDDIQUE AND ANR. v. ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (P) BOMBAY AND ANR., 1990 Crl. LJ. 2201 wherein the Bombay High Court has held as follows:-
Maa Saraswati Traders vs The Union Of India & Ors on 28 February, 2012
In this connection, he relied upon a decision of
the Supreme Court in case of Noor Aga v. State of Punjab and
another, reported in (2008) 16 Supreme Court Cases 417 and
also a decision of Bombay High Court in case of Ashak
Hussain Allah Detha alias Siddique and another v. Assistant
Collector of Customs (P), Bombay and another, reported in
1990 Crl. L. J. 2201.
Padma Ram vs Supdt.(Prosecution) Central Ex on 29 January, 2013
Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that in absence of application of section 123 of the Act of 1962, the burden was on prosecution to prove recovery of the goods to be smuggled one. Prosecution failed to prove its case. They relied on the statement of the accused petitioner recorded under section 108 of the Act of 1962 ignoring that statement of the accused cannot be used against him. Reference of Article 20 of the Constitution of India has been given. Reference of the judgment in the case of Gopal Lal versus Union of India reported as 2006(1) CrLR (Rajasthan) 532 and Ashok Hussain Allah Detha @ Siddique and anr versus Assistant Collector of Customs (P), Bombay & anr, reported as 1990 CrLJ 2201 has been given.