SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.L. UNTWALIA AND O. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ.
(1) Bhawarlal Ganeshmalji, Appellant
Versus
The State of T.N., and another, Respondents.
Criminal Appeal No. 233 of 1978 and Writ Petn. No. 4327 of 1978, D/- 11-12-1978.
AND
(2) Bhawarlal Ganeshmalji, Petitioner
Versus
State of T.N., and others, Respondents.
Advocates appeared
Mr. Ram Jethmalani, Sr. Advocate, (Mr. M. G. Kurnali and Mr. Vineet Kumar Advocates with him), for Appellant/Petitioner; Mr. A. V. Rangam, Advocate, for Respondents.
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 22 - Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 - Section 7 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 82 - Dealing in smuggled gold - Register parcel bearing - Impugned detention order was made on December by Government of Tamil Nadu grounds for order were contained in memorandum December Government of Tamil Nadu - Order of detention could not be executed immediately as appellant petitioner was absconding and could not be apprehended despite proclamation made pursuant to Section Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act – Appellant petitioner however surrendered himself before Commissioner of Police Madras on February - First order of detention and later grounds of detention were served on appellant petitioner – Held, That is right which flows from constitutional right to be afforded reasonable opportunity to make representation - Of course where grounds are vague no question would arise of detent asking for better particulars - But present case is not case vague ground - Ground is specific enough - If detent wanted any more particulars such as name of intelligence officer or other information he could have well asked for particulars before making his representation - That he never did - It was not as if any privilege had been claimed by Government in respect of intelligence reports - In fact court find that intelligence reports were produced before Judges High Court at hearing of Writ Petition there - There was no complaint before us that detent or his counsel wanted to peruse reports and were denied opportunity of doing so – Court do not think that detent could be said to have been denied reasonable opportunity of making representation merely because particulars which he never desired in respect ground which was not vague were not furnished to him – Court are unable to see any force in any of submissions advanced on behalf detent – Appeal dismissed
Judgment
CHINNAPPA REDDY, J.:- Bhawarlal Ganeshmalji whose application for the issue of a Writ of Habeas Corpus was rejected by the High Court of Madras, is the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 233 of 1978. He has also filed Writ Petition No. 4327 of 1978 for the issue of a Writ of Habeas Corpus under Art. 32 of the Constitution in which he has raised certain grounds which had not been raised before the Madras High Court. The appeal and the Writ Petition were heard together by us and are disposed of by this common order.
2. The impugned detention order was made on 19th December, 1974 by the Government of Tamil Nadu and the grounds for the order were contained in a memorandum dated 20th December, 1974 of the Government of Tamil Nadu. The order of detention could not be executed immediately as the appellant-petitioner was absconding and could not be apprehended despite a proclamation made pursuant to Section 7 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. The appellant-petitioner, however, surrendered himself before the Commissioner of Police, Madras on 1st February, 1978. First the order of detention and later the grounds of detention were served on the appellant-petitioner.
3. There were two grounds of detention which were as follows:
"(i) On 23-2-1972 an inland registered parcel bearing No. 325 emanating from one T. Chowdiah No. 2, Sanjeevappa Lane, Bangalore, and addressed to M/s. Raj Metal House, 77, Mint St. Madras was intercepted by Preventive Officers of the Madras Customs at the Madras General Post Office and it was found to contain Indian currency amounting to Rs. 1,20,000 and the currency was seized under the Customs Act. Sukanraj, owner of M/s. Raj Metal House on being questioned admitted in a written statement dated 23-2-1972 that the currency was sent by one R. G. Bhandaris man from Bangalore, to be received by him and handed over to one Bhoormal, a partner of R. G. Bhandari, residing with the latter. He also stated that he knew well that R. G. Bhandari was dealing in smuggled gold at Bangalore; Sukanraj further stated that within the previous two months, 5 or 6 parcels were received by him and by his brother Motilal. Mothilal also gave an independent statement on the same day corroborating the facts mentioned by his brother that R. G. Bhandari was dealing in smuggled gold and that the currencies in post parcels were the sale proceeds of smuggled gold. On enquiry at the Park Town Post Office it was found that seven registered parcels had been delivered to M/s. Raj Metal Works between 18-1-1972 and 17-2-1972 and received either by Sukhanraj or Mothilal.
At Bangalore, the premises at No. 2, Sanjeevappa Lane the address mentioned on post parcel, was searched on 23-2-1972. T. Chowdiah, the sender of the said parcel was not there. But one Ghaverchand Samarthajee was present. He admitted in his statement dated 24-2-1972 that he was an employee of R. G. Bhandari and on the latters instructions he was disposing of smuggled gold in Bangalore on behalf of his master and despatching the sale proceeds to Madras. The postal receipt bearing the No. 325 Avenue Road Post Office, Bangalore, in respect of the parcel which was seized at Madras, was also seized. This and his confessional statement revealed that he had previously despatched seven registered parcels to M/s. Raj Metal Works containing amounts to the tune of Rupees 8,84,000 using the name of T. Chowdiah and that he had disposed of 3900 bars of smuggled gold valued at Rupees 80 lakhs within a short time of less than a month. Bhavarlal, the servant of Bhoormal in Madras identified Ghaverchand Samarthajee as an employee of R. G. Bhandari used for gold smuggling business at Bangalore. The case was adjudicated and the currency was confiscated. A personal penalty of Rs. 5,000 was imposed on Thiru R. G. Bhandari.
(ii) On 20-4-1974, 40 bars of gold weighing 23,274.100 grams valued at Rs. 12,75,420 were seized by Thiru Ramanathan Supdt. Centra
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.