Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.26 seconds)Sitthi Zuraina Begum vs Union Of India & Ors on 22 November, 2002
18. Learned Additional Government Advocate has strongly
refuted the contentions urged by the Counsel for the petitioner.
He has placed reliance on the judgment in the case of MADAN
WPHC.97/2016
16
LAL ANAND VS UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS - AIR 1990 SC 176,
to urge that in case of preventive detention, documents having
bearing on the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority
must be placed before the detaining authority and if some of the
documents have no bearing on the matter, even in their
absence, subjective satisfaction taken would not be affected;
failure to place such documents or provide the same to the
detenue would not be material. He has also relied on the
judgment in the case of N.K.BAPNA VS. UNION OF INDIA &
OTHERS - (1992) 3 SCC 512 and in the case of SITTHI ZURAINA
BEGUM Vs. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS - (2002) 10 SCC 448 to
contend that the volume and nature of the goods seized and the
fact that the detenue was part of a bigger network in bringing
the gold into the country violating relevant laws and other fact
situation involved in this case made it clear that the meaning of
the word 'smuggling' could not be confined to the goods going
out of the country and coming back which are contraband or to
evade duty, but may include encouraging such activities as well
by dealing in such goods.
Usha Agarwal vs Union Of India & Ors on 2 November, 2006
He has also invited our attention to
the judgment in the case of USHA AGARWAL Vs. UNION OF
INDIA AND OTHERS - (2007) 1 SCC 295. He has urged by
referring to paragraph 13 of the said judgment that a document
WPHC.97/2016
17
could be relevant for considering the case of the person for
preventive detention, if it relates to or has a bearing on either of
the following two issues: (a) Whether the detenue had indulged
in smuggling or other activities prejudicial to the State, which
the COFEPOSA Act is designed to prevent; and (b) Whether the
nature of the illegal and prejudicial activity and the manner in
which the detenue had indulged in such activity, gave a
reasonable indication that he would continue to indulge in such
activity. In other words, whether he had the propensity and
potentiality to continue the prejudicial activity necessitating an
order of detention. He urges that in case the twin
considerations have been satisfied, the detention order is
perfectly justified.
Gautam Jain vs U.O.I.& Anr on 4 January, 2017
He has also placed reliance on the judgment
dated 04.01.2017 passed by the Apex Court in Criminal Appeal
No.2281/2014 in the case of GAUTAM JAIN Vs. UNION OF INDIA
& ANOTHER IN CRL.APPEAL NO.2281/2014 DATED 04.01.2017.
He has invited our attention to paragraphs 21 & 22 of the said
judgment to emphasize the fact that in the said case, the Apex
Court, by referring to various earlier judgments, has laid down
that when the detention order has been made based on two or
more grounds, such order of detention shall be deemed to have
been made separately on each of such grounds and accordingly,
WPHC.97/2016
18
if one irrelevant or one inadmissible ground had been taken
into consideration that would not make the detention order
bad.
Mst. L.M.S. Ummu Saleema vs B.B. Gujaral & Anr on 4 May, 1981
Reliance is also placed on the judgment in the case of
MST.L.M.S. UMMU SALEEMA Vs. SHRI B.B.GUJARAL AND
ANOTHER - (1981) 3 SCC 317 to contend that every failure to
furnish copy of the documents to which reference is made in
the grounds of detention does not tantamount to infringement
of Article 22(5) of the Constitution fatal to the order of detention
and that only failure to furnish copies of such documents as
were relied upon by the detaining authority making it difficult
for the detenue to make an effective representation that would
tantamount to violation of the fundamental right guaranteed by
Article 22(5). He, therefore, contended that non-supply of the
show-cause notice in the instant case would not vitiate the
detention order. Reliance is also placed by him on the
judgment in the case of ABDUL SATHAR IBRAHIM MANIK VS
UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS - (1992)1 SCC 1, particularly to the
observations made in paragraphs 12 & 13.
Prakash Chandra Mehta vs Commissioner And Secretary Government ... on 12 April, 1985
23. As held by the Apex Court in the case of PRAKASH
CHANDRA MEHTA Vs. COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY,
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA & OTHERS - 1985 (SUPP) SCC 144,
particularly in paragraphs 78 to 82 and in the wake of the
overwhelming materials gathered in the course of investigation
by the authorities in the form of seizure of gold, currency notes
and several other incriminating materials, the need to protect
the society from social menace by detaining such persons
engaged in smuggling and related activities which have adverse
effect on the national economy aimed at disrupting the economy
has to be kept in mind along with the all important fact that the
procedural safeguards have to be ensured and the power
conferred on the authorities is not casually exercised so that
fundamental freedom guaranteed to the citizens is not
undermined. Therefore, by adopting such pragmatic and
realistic approach, we have carefully considered the entire
materials and are of the view that exercise of power by the
WPHC.97/2016
23
authorities, in the instant case, has been strictly as per the
safeguards provided.