Full Judgment Text
2007:BHC-AS:16545-DB
( 1 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2258 OF 2006 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2258 OF 2006 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2258 OF 2006
Mrs.Safiyabanoo Mohammed Arif Rizvi,
aged about 60 years,
Indian Inhabitant, residing at
91/93, Sarang Street, Room No.13,
Haji Faruque Mansion, 5th Floor,
Mumbai - 400 003.
.. Petitioner
(Mother of the detenu)
V/s
1. The Union of India
2. Somnath Pal,
The then Joint Secretary
to the Government of India,
Ministry of Finance,
Department of Revenue,
6th Floor, ‘B’ Wing,
Janpath Bhavan, New Delhi
3. The Superintendent of Prison,
The Mumbai Central Prison,
Arthur Road, Mumbai
4. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents
Mr.Maqsood Khan for the Petitioner.
Mr.R.M.Agarwal for Respondent-Union of India.
Mr.D.S.Mhaispurkar, APP for Respondent-State.
CORAM : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, & CORAM : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, & CORAM : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, &
SMT.R.S.DALVI, JJ. SMT.R.S.DALVI, JJ. SMT.R.S.DALVI, JJ.
DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT: 28.08.2007 DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT: 28.08.2007 DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT: 28.08.2007
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT: 05.09.2007 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT: 05.09.2007 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT: 05.09.2007
JUDGMENT JUDGMENT: (PER DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) JUDGMENT (PER DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (PER DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)
1. By this petition, the petitioner who is the mother
of the detenu is challenging an order of detention dated
24th May, 1999 passed by the Joint Secretary of
Government of India under Sec.3(1) of the Conservation
of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:54:09 :::
( 2 )
Activities Act, 1974, (hereinafter stated as the "said
Act" for brevity sake), with a view to prevent the
detenu Iqbal in future from acting in any manner
prejudicial to the conservation of foreign exchange.
The order of detention was passed and the detenu was
directed to be kept in the Central Prison, at Mumbai.
Alongwith the said order detailed grounds were furnished
to the detenu Iqbal.
2. The learned Counsel Mr.Maqsood Khan, appearing on
behalf of the detenu challenges the above detention
order only on two grounds. Firstly, that the order was
not justified from the materials placed before the
detaining authority as the material do not disclose the
activities to be prejudicial to the conservation of
foreign exchange as the exact quantity of foreign
currency purchased by the detenu from Riyaz Kashmiri has
not been quantified. In view thereof, it was submitted
that there is non application of mind. Secondly, the
learned Counsel Mr.Maqsood Khan appearing on behalf of
the detenu has contended that there is a gross delay in
passing the detention order inasmuch as more than 10
months had lapsed from the time of disclosure of the
detenu’s name on 15th May, 1998 and also that the said
detention order was not executed for over seven and half
years, and even at the time of execution on 11th
September, 2006 the detaining authority ought to have
considered whether the detention was really needed or
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:54:09 :::
( 3 )
not.
3. The brief facts are that the Respondents found that
one Riyaz Ahmed Kashmiri and Javed Ahmed Kashmiri were
indulging in large scale illegal sale of foreign
currency in an organised manner especially to enable
passengers illegally carrying the said foreign currency
abroad. The modus operendi appears to be that the said
Riyaz Ahmend Kashmiri and Javed Ahmed Kashmiri alongwith
Iqbal, the detenu herein, used to obtain various
passports of different persons for the purpose of
securing employment abroad and keep photocopies of the
relevant pages and thereafter affixing the seal of M/s
Empire Exchange Bureau filling in the amount of foreign
exchange, and attaching BTQ application form, the form
used to be forged as if it was signed by the persons
indicated in the passport. It appears that the detenu
also used to sign those BTQ applications i.e.forged
applications and deposit the cash amount and obtain pay
order in favour of other FFMCs and used to sign cheques
for obtaining pay orders, and the foreign exchange so
obtained will be sold at a premium to passengers who
were going abroad. The aforesaid passengers who were
actually carrying the said foreign exchange were totally
different from the name under which the foreign exchange
was obtained. It appears that the said Riyaz Ahmed
Kashmiri and Javed Ahmed Kashmiri had purchased over two
lakhs US Dollars in the year 1997 itself and the overall
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:54:09 :::
( 4 )
amount appeared around 41,55,611 US Dollars, and 23,000
Pounds Sterlings were also purchsed in this manner and
sold at a premium. The grounds of detention served on
the detenu sets out in detail all the aforesaid facts
and the exact involvement of the detenu, and ultimately
the authority after satisfying itself the necessity to
prevent the detenu from indulging in such activity and
to conserve foreign exchange, the aforesaid detention
order was passed, which is impugned in this Petition.
4. It appears that the though the order was passed in
1999, the same could not be executed till September-2006
as the detenu was absconding and was not traceable at
all and fortunately in the month of September-2006 as
the detenu was giving evidence in one case before the
learned Sessions Judge at Mumbai, one of the accused in
the said sessions case indicated that the present detenu
was Iqbal Hasan Mohamed Arif Rizvi wanted in the said
detention order. In that process the authority came to
know that the detenu was the same person, in connection
with the said detention order. Accordingly, the
detention order was executed on 11.09.2006, in the
evening after the evidence of the detenu was recorded on
that day.
5. Mr.Maqsood Khan, the learned Counsel appearing on
behalf of the detenu has strongly contended that,
firstly, the detaining authority did not have sufficient
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:54:09 :::
( 5 )
material to indicate that the detenu was carrying on
activities which were prejudicial to the conservation of
foreign exchange, and also that the authority concerned
could not establish clearly the exact quantity of
foreign exchange purchased by the detenu from Riyaz
Ahmed Kashmiri, and as such he contended that there was
total non-application of mind while passing the said
detention order.
6. With regard to the aforesaid contentions, the
learned Counsel Shri.Agarwal appearing on behalf of the
Respondent, detaining authority, has pointed out in
detail, from the grounds, various particulars clearly
indicating the involvement of the detenu, inasmuch as he
used to forge the BTQ Applications and used to deposit
large sums of money and also collect foreign exchange
and then handover the same to various passengers going
abroad to enable them to carry illegally. Shri.Agarwal
has pointed out that this is a large scale foreign
exchange racket in an organised manner and the
involvement of the detenu was explicit and large sums of
money were also involved in the above, and it cannot be
very precisely stated as to the exact amount of foreign
exchange which was purchased by the detenu, since the
actions were based on a number of Hawala transactions.
7. The learned Counsel Shri.Maqsood Khan appearing for
the detenu with regard to the second ground has
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:54:09 :::
( 6 )
contended that there has been a delay of about 10 months
in actually passing the order of detention, inasmuch as
the authority concerned was aware of the name of the
detenu when the same was disclosed on 15.05.1998 by
Riyaz Kashmiri when his statement was recorded, and as
such, the order of detention was passed in a belated
manner. Over and above, Mr.Maqsood Khan has contended
that even the order of detention passed in
September-1999 was executed only in September-2006 that
is over a period of seven years delay in execution of
the order, and as such, the detaining authority ought to
have considered whether at all the detention order ought
to have been executed against the detenu at the present
juncture. In that behalf, Mr.Maqsood Khan referred to
and relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the
case of Union of India V/s.Muneesh Suneja - 2001 AIR SCW Union of India V/s.Muneesh Suneja - 2001 AIR SCW Union of India V/s.Muneesh Suneja - 2001 AIR SCW
463, 463, wherein, this very issue of delay in execution of 463,
the detention order was considered, and in Paragraph
No.8 the Supreme Court has observed as under:-
"At the same time, it must also be noticed that the
order or detention having been made as early as on
9th June, 1998 and the same not having been effected
till today, it is certainly necessary for the
authorities concerned in the Government to apply mind
as to whether detention of the Respondent is still
necessary or not and take appropriate steps either in
giving effect to the order of detention or to revoke
the same. In addition, we may also notice that the
order made by us will not prejudice the interest of
the Respondent that in the event the said order of
detention is given effect to, it is open to the
Respondent to raise all grounds as are permissible in
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:54:09 :::
( 7 )
law, not withstanding what we may have observed in
the course of this order."
8. Mr.Khan also referred to another judgment of the
Supreme Court in the case of Bhawarlal Ganeshmalji Bhawarlal Ganeshmalji Bhawarlal Ganeshmalji
V/s.State of Tamilnadu & Another - (1979) 1 SCC 465, V/s.State of Tamilnadu & Another - (1979) 1 SCC 465, V/s.State of Tamilnadu & Another - (1979) 1 SCC 465,
wherein, in paragraph No.6 the Supreme Court has dealt
with the issue of delay in execution of the detention
order. The relevant paragraph No.6 reads as under:-
"It is true that the purpose of detention under the
COFEPOSA, is not punitive but preventive. The
purpose is to prevent organised smuggling and
activities and to conserve and augment foreign
exchange. It is true that the maximum period for
which a person may be detained under the COFEPOSA is
one year. It is further true that there must be a
‘live and proximate link’ between the grounds of
detention alleged by the detaining authority and the
avowed purpose of detention viz. the prevention of
smuggling activities. We may in appropriate cases
assume that the link is ‘snapped’ if there is a long
and unexplained delay between the date or the order
of detention and the arrest of the detenu. In such a
case, we may strike down an order of detention unless
the grounds indicate a fresh application of mind of
the detaining authority to the new situation and the
changed circumstances. But where the delay is not
only adequately explained but is found to be the
result of the recalcitrant or refractory conduct of
the detenu in evading arrest, there is warrant to
consider the ‘link’ not snapped but strengthened.
That precisely is the state of affairs before us.
The order of detention was made on December 19, 1974.
The detenu was found to be absconding. Action was
taken pursuant to Section 7 of the COFEPOSA and he
was proclaimed as a person absconding under section
82 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The proclaimation
was published in several leading English and local
language daily newspapers. His photograph was
exhibited in cinema halls. A reward of Rs.5000/- was
also announced for his apprehension. Despite of all
this effort he could not be arrested until he
surrendered on February 1, 1978. We do not have any
hesitation in overruling the submission of
Shri.Jethmalani based on the delay in the execution
of the order of detention."
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:54:09 :::
( 8 )
9. Mr.Khan thereafter referred to another judgment of
the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Union of India & Ors. Union of India & Ors.
V/s.Arvind Shergill and Another - 2000 AIR SCW 3258 V/s.Arvind Shergill and Another - 2000 AIR SCW 3258, V/s.Arvind Shergill and Another - 2000 AIR SCW 3258
wherein, in paragraph Nos.5 & 6 the Supreme Court has
dealt with the issue of delay in execution of the
detention order. The relevant Paragraph Nos.5 & 6 of
the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court, read as
under:-
"5. However, the learned Counsel for the Respondent
submitted that the order of detention was made on
17.11.1998, whereas the writ petition was filed on
21.4.1999 and order of stay was passed on the same
date and subsequently that order continued till the
disposal of the matter on 4.8.1999. Thus, he
submitted that the facts upon which detention had
been ordered and the actual detention not being
effected till today, the nexus thereto has snapped
and in the lignt of the decision of this Court in
Sunil Fulchand Shah V/s.Union of India, (2000) 3 SCC
409; (2000 AIR SCW 582: AIR 2000 SC 1023: 2000
Cri.L.J.1444), it would not be appropriate for this
Court to direct detention of the husband of the
Respondent Now. A bench of Five Judges of this
Court examined this matter and majority of Judges
held that a detenu need not be sent back to undergo
the remaining period of detention after a long lapse
of time when even the maximum prescribed period
intended in the order of detention has expired,
unless there is still a proximate nexus between the
period of detention prescribed when the detenu was
required to be detained and the date when the
detenu is required to be detained pursuant to the
appellate order and the State is able to satisfy the
Court about the desirability of further or continued
detention. It was also made clear therein that
where a long time has not lapsed or the period of
detention initially fixed in the order of detention
has also not expired, the detenu may be sent back
to undergo the balance period of detention."
"6. Therefore, in the present case, what we have to
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:54:09 :::
( 9 )
look is whether any long period has lapsed as it has
happened in Sunil Fulchand Shah’s case (2000 AIR SCW
582: AIR 2000 SC 1023: 2000 Cri.LJ 1444) (supra)
wherein the petitioner was directed to be detained
for a period of one year with effect from 4.7.1986
and the said period of one year expired on 3.7.1987
and the matter was taken upon for hearing only on
16.2.2000. In the circumstance, when the period of
detention itself had expired 13 years earlier, then
this Court came to the conclusion as aforesaid.
However, this is not the position in the present
case at all. Husband of the respondent evaded
arrest as is obvious and obtained an interim order
from the High Court wihch was in force till the
disposal of the writ petition and therafter on
quashing of the detenion order qustion of detention
made did not arise now. Therefore, we do not think
that it would be appropriate to state that merely by
passage of time the nexus between the object for
which the husband of the respondent is sought to be
detained and the circumstances in which he was
ordered to be detained has snapped. However, we
make it clear that if those circumstances did not
exist, then it would be appropriate for the
Government to revoke the order of detention and, if
still certain circumstances as apprehended in the
order of detention exist, it will be open to the
Government to enforce the same. Making this
position clear, we allow this appeal and set aside
the order made by the High Court. Appeal allowed."
10. In the light of the above, Mr.Khan, the learned
Counsel for the detenu very strongly contended that the
detention of the detenu Iqbal cannot be sustained as
there was total non-application of mind as well as gross
delay in execution of detention order and the authority
had not considered whether it is really necessary to
execute detention order in the year 2006.
11. Mr.Agarwal, appearing on behalf of the detaining
authority strongly contended that this is a large scale
foreign exchange racket in an organised manner and that
the detaining authority was fully justified in passing
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:54:09 :::
( 10 )
the aforesaid detention order. He took us through the
grounds of detention and the reasons given therein as
well as various material and the statements made by the
Riyaz Ahmed as well as Javed Ahmed Mistry clearly
indicating the involvement of the detenu, and he also
pointed out that these activities have been carried on
right from the year 1997 and after collecting all the
details and even after the statement of 15.05.1998
various other particulars had to be collected and
ultimately the order of detention came to be passed in
March, 1999. Mr.Agarwal pointed out that, from all the
aforesaid material it cannot be said that the detaining
authority had no material before him to come to the said
conclusion.
12. With regard to the delay in execution of the order
of detention Mr.Agarwal strongly relied upon the
judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhawarlal Bhawarlal Bhawarlal
Ganeshmalji V/s.State of Tamilnadu, Ganeshmalji V/s.State of Tamilnadu, which is quoted
Ganeshmalji V/s.State of Tamilnadu,
hereinabove, wherein the Supreme Court has very
categorically held that only when the live link is
snapped, that is to say when there is a long unexplained
delay between the date of the order of detention and the
arrest of the detenu, only in such cases the order of
detention should be struck down. However, when the
delay is not only adequately explained and the said
delay was found to be as a result of recalcitrant and
refractory conduct of the detenu in evading arrest, then
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:54:09 :::
( 11 )
the live link not only does not snap but gets
strengthened by this aforesaid conduct of evading
arrest.
13. Mr.Agarwal thereafter referred to another judgment
of the Supreme Court in the case of Subhash Muljimal Subhash Muljimal Subhash Muljimal
Gandhi V/s.L.Himingliana and Another - 1994 (6) SCC 14, Gandhi V/s.L.Himingliana and Another - 1994 (6) SCC 14, Gandhi V/s.L.Himingliana and Another - 1994 (6) SCC 14,
wherein, the Supreme Court while dealing with the issue
of delay in executing the detention order, in paragraph
No.13 of the order, has observed as under:-
"Mr.Jethmalani lastly submitted that having regard to
the fact that the order of detention was passed as
far back as in 1990 and the maximum period of
detenion, which the appellant would have to undergo
under the order was two years was long over, his
detention at this distant point of time would be
punitive and not preventive. It is undoubtedly true
that an unusual delay in execution of an order of
detention if not satisfactorily explained, may
pursuade the Court to draw such an inference. There
is, however, no scope for drawing such an inference
in this case as the delay here has been occasioned
not by any omission or commission on the part of the
detaining authority. On the contrary, it is the
appellant who has delayed the execution by first
moving the Bombay High Court and then this Court.
That apart, the Respodnents have asserted that though
this Court had not passed any interim order against
execution of the order, it could not be served as the
appellant was absconding. It is pertinent to point
out here that an identical contention raised by
Mr.Jethmalani on similar facts, was negatived by this
Court in Bhawarlal Ganeshmalji V/s.State of
Tamilnadu."
. Therein also the Supreme Court has clearly held that
as the appellant was absconding the order could not be
executed, and therefore the detaining authorities cannot
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:54:09 :::
( 12 )
be faulted with regard to the same.
14. Mr.Agarwal, the learned Counsel for the detaining
authority also referred to and relied upon the another
judgment of our High Court in the case of Mukesh T.Bora Mukesh T.Bora Mukesh T.Bora
V/s.Union of India - 2006 Criminal Law Journal 243, V/s.Union of India - 2006 Criminal Law Journal 243, V/s.Union of India - 2006 Criminal Law Journal 243,
wherein, this Court has also clearly taken a view that
once the proclamation is made under Section 7(1)(b) of
the said Act the Detenue ought to have appeared before
the authority on his own accord. However as the detenu
who is avoiding in view of his absconding the Detenue
cannot be allowed to reap benefit out of his own wrong.
15. Mr.Agarwal also referred and relied upon the
Kasim Kadar
another judgment of our Court in the case of Kasim Kadar Kasim Kadar
Kunhi V/s.State of Maharashtra & Ors.- 2005 ALL MR (Cri) Kunhi V/s.State of Maharashtra & Ors.- 2005 ALL MR (Cri) Kunhi V/s.State of Maharashtra & Ors.- 2005 ALL MR (Cri)
1468, 1468, wherein this Court emphasised that once the order 1468,
is passed u/s.7(1) (b) of the said Act, the burden will
lie upon the detenu to establish that it was not
possible for him to comply with the direction issued
under the said provisions of law for his appearance. It
is very clearly held in the said judgment that there
being a presumption about the knowledge to the detenu of
the detention order in view of direction under
sec.7(1)(b) having been published in official gazette it
was necessary for the detenu himself to discolse the
reason for not being possible for him to appear before
the authority and his whereabouts, and having failed to
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:54:09 :::
( 13 )
do so the detenu cannot take benefit from his own wrong.
16. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
Mr.Agarwal, the learned Counsel for the detaining
authority has contended that in the instant case it is
the very act of detenu absconding for over seven years
and inspite of best efforts made by the authority they
could not trace him and only on 11.9.2006 they were
accidently able to notice, when it was brought to their
notice by an accused person in that case that he was the
very same person. Mr.Agarwal also brought to our notice
that the detenu while deposing as a witness evidence
given in Spl.Case No.7/2004 before the Sessions Court
Bombay, especially the evidence given by him on 4th, 5th
& 11th September, 2006 clearly indicates that the detenu
used to receive large sums of money and convert the same
in foreign exchange illegally. With the consent of both
the parties we perused the said evidence. The detenu
has categorically admitted that the Indian citizens
working in Dubai used to handover money to Rashidbhai in
Dirhams and after receiving instructions from
Rashidbhai, he used to pay money in rupees to various
persons in Mumbai. Detenue has even given the telephone
numbers of the said Rashidbhai and as to how he used to
tell him the names to whom the money was to be given.
In the evidence he has also explained in detail, as to
how he used to collect money and convert the same into
foreign exchange illegally and give the same to persons
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:54:09 :::
( 14 )
who were in need of the same. Mr.Agarwal therefore
contended that the above evidence also indicates that
right from 1997 till 2004 the detenu was continuously
indulging in a large scale foreign exchange racket, and
as such, the order of the detaining authority was fully
justifiable, and that the live link had not snapped.
The delay in execution of the detention order was
entirely due to detenu absconding and avoiding arrest.
17. Mr.D.S.Mhaispurkar, the learned Counsel appearing
on behalf of the authority who executed the detention
order, has pointed out that the detention order was
issued against the detenu on 24.05.1999, which was
received by the concerned cell on 8th June 1999, and on
the very same day the concerned officers had visited the
premises of the detenu mentioned in the detention order.
However, on enquiries it was found that he was staying
in the said premises on a rental basis and that he had
left the said premises. Thereafter on enquiries it was
found that he was staying at three different places and
at all the three different places the detenu could not
be found. The necessary information to trace the detenu
was given to the Sr.Inspector of Police, Dongari Police
Station, under Lookout Cell. The affidavit of Mr.Dilip
Sakharam Kale, Police Inspector, who is attached to
Crime Branch (Prevention), dated 11.07.2007
categorically states that the authority made various
attempts specially 9th June-1999, 7th July-1999, 9th
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:54:09 :::
( 15 )
July-1999, 17th August-1999, 20th April-2000 and 21st
December-2005 to arrest the detenu, however, the detenu
was not traceable and hence could not be arrested.
Finally a notification contemplated under Section
7(1)(b) of the said Act was issued on 20th July, 1999
and the same was gazetted and the same was also pasted
on the premises of the detenu, as per the address known
to the detaining authority, being Flat No.5, Kapadia
Complex, Sarang Street, Mumbai. Mr.Dilip Sakharam Kale,
in the aforesaid affidavit also discloses that the
detenu has attended the special Court constituted under
MCOC Act in Special Case No.7/2004 and while he was
giving evidence on 11th September, 2006 it was revealed
that he was absconding and avoiding execution of the
detention order. Thereafter at the end of the day on
11th September, 2006 in the evening the detenu was
apprehended, that is to say that the detention order was
executed. Hence, the learned Counsel Mr.Mhaispurkar has
contended that all necessary steps were taken and as the
detenu was avoiding arrest, the same could not be
executed. Over and above, he emphasised that under
Section 7(1)(b) of the COFEPOSA Act it was the duty on
the detenu to surrender after the said order and appear
before the authority and he cannot take advantage of his
own wrong and contend that that there was delay in
execution of the said order.
18. After hearing all the parties, and after perusal of
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:54:09 :::
( 16 )
all the records including the evidence given by the
detenu in the Sessions Court, Bombay in September-2006,
we enquired from the Advocate Mr.Maqsood Khan as to
whether he wants the matter to be remanded to the
Detaining Authority to consider the material as
disclosed in September-2006 by the detenu and to decide
as to whether the detention order should continue or
not. Mr.Maqsood Khan, the learned Counsel for the
detenue categorically stated that there was no need to
send the matter back to Detaining Authority, as the
detention would come to an end on 10.9.2007 and that we
can take into account the evidence of the detenu given
in September-2006 while deciding the matter.
19. After having heard all the learned Counsel at
length and after considering all the material, with
regard to the first ground of attack by Mr.Maqsood Khan
that there was no material before the detaining
authority to pass the aforesaid order of detention, it
is amply clear from the record that the detailed grounds
have been set out and the material produced has clearly
indicated the explicit involvement of the detenu in the
aforementioned foreign exchange racket, and though the
exact quantity of foreign exchane purchased by the
detenu was not indicated, sufficient details have been
furnished to indicate the clear involvement of the
detenu in the aforesaid detention order, specially in
the grounds, and the evidence of detenu recorded in
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:54:09 :::
( 17 )
September-2006. The aforesaid records clearly indicate
the involvement of the detenu in an organised foreign
exchange racket from 1997 till 2004. The propensity of
detenu continuing to indulge in such activities is also
established. Under these circumstances, we do not find
any merit in the aforesaid contention that there is non
application of mind on the part of the detaining
authority in passing the order of detention, The details
of the basis for detention have been properly
considered. We do not find any substance in the above
contention of non application of mind while passing the
detention order.
20. With regard to the second ground of attack, that is
there is a gross delay in execution of the detention
order, it is explicitly clear from the aforesaid Supreme
Court Judgments and our High Court Judgments that if the
detenu himself tries to take advantage and is
absconding, the detenu will not be permitted to do so.
Over and above, as rightly pointed out under Sec.7(1)(b)
of the said Act, the detenu ought to have presented
himself once that notification was issued and published
in a Gazette, whereas the detenu, very cleverly avoided
and absconded, and now cannot turn round and say that
there is a gross delay in execution of the detention
order. In fact in the aforesaid Bhawarlal’s case Bhawarlal’s case the Bhawarlal’s case
Supreme Court has clearly held that in such a case of
absconding detenu, the live link is not snapped, and in
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:54:09 :::
( 18 )
fact in fact gets strengthened by such an act of
absconding.
21. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we do
not find any substance with regard to both the aforesaid
grounds, as there is no merit in the same. Hence, Rule
stands discharged.
(SMT.R.S.DALVI, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (SMT.R.S.DALVI, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (SMT.R.S.DALVI, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 16:54:09 :::