SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1995 Supreme(Bom) 297

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Ashok Agarwal A.S.V. Moorthy, JJ.
Smt. Najama w/o. Nizamuddin.... Petitioner.
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others.... Respondents.
Criminal Writ Petition No. 1433 of 1994, decided on 6-7-1995.
Advocates appeared :
S.G. Rajput, for the petitioner.
S.G. Page, P.P., for the respondents.

Headnote:Section 3(1)-Constitution of India, Article 22(5)-Detention order Service of-Delay In-Attempt after long gaps of several months-Each showing casual approach of authorities-Held; that delay remained unsatisfactorily explained-Hence, order of detention be vitiated-Officials action reflected non-application of mind and negligence service of order.

       Article 22(5)-See Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974-Section 3(1).

JUDGMENT - ASHOK AGARWAL, J. :---Petitioner is the wife of one Nizamuddin Sirajuddin who has been detained pursuant to an order passed by the Secretary (Preventive Detention) to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department and Detaining Authority. The detention order bears No. SPL-3(A)/PSA 0191/469, is dated 18th November, 1991 and is passed under section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the COFEPOSA Act). By the present petition, the petitioner seeks to impugn the aforesaid order and the consequent incarceration of the detenu.

2. Though several grounds have been advanced for the purpose of impugning the detention of the detenu, it is enough to mention only one of them, as, according to us, the same is sufficient for the disposal of the petition.

3. It is contended that the seizure on the basis of which the impugned order of detention has been issued against the detenu was effected on 14th May, 1991. The detenu was apprehended on the 15th May, 1991 and was released on bail on the 16th May, 1991. The impugned order of detention was belatedly issued on the 18th of November, 1991. The same was belatedly served on the detenu on the 2nd of August, 1994 i.e. after a lapse of two years and eight and half months. It is contended that apart from the undue delay in issuing the order of detention there has been an undue and unexplained delay in serving the order of detention on the detenu. This, according to the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has rendered the detention of the detenu illegal.

4. As far as the delay in serving the order of detention is concerned, we have on record an affidavit filed by Shri L.S. Danekar, Senior Police Inspector attached to P.C.B. C.I.D. In respect of the delay in serving the order of detention, he had averred, as follows:

"2. The detention order dated 18-11-1991 was received in our office on the same date at 18.45 hours. On 20-11-1991 at 03.30 hours Police Sub-Inspector Pande and Custom Officer Mr. Yadav and Staff of P.C.B. visited room No. 82 83 Kamatipura, Lane No. 03, Bombay-400 008, when the detenu was not found. Enquiries were made with one Jafherulla Jalil Addimkhan and his wife Saira Banu who were present at relevant time. The enquiries revealed that they were the tenant of the room, they did not know anything about the detenu. Mr. Jahurbhai and his wife Bismillabi were present in the room No. 83. They stated that they did not know anything about the detenu and they were tenants of the said room. The said two rooms were standing in the name of the father of the detenu Sirajuddin Sheikh. Then on 26-10-1992 Police Inspector Deshmukh, Pande and staff attached to P.C.B. C.I.D. visited the said two rooms mentioned above, but the detenu was not found. Enquiries were made with Gulam Mehabubbhai who was present in the said rooms, at the relevant time; the enquires revealed that he was the tenant and he did not know anything about wherebouts of the detenu. On 28-9-1992 the detention order alongwith grounds of detentions and documents were sent to the Home Department, Mantralaya, as the detention order could not be executed on 26-2-1992, 4-2-1993, 5-2-1993 and 23-3-1993. The detenu did not attend the Honourable Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Esplanade Court, Bombay. He was supposed to attend the Court on above mentioned dates because they were remand dates. The detenu could not be served the detention order on those dates".

"3. On 1-8-1994 at 5.30 hours Police Sub-Inspector Kishan Mahajan of Nagpada Police Station informed on telephone that Nagpada Police Station had traced detenu and at 21.15 hours on the same day the detenu was brought at the office of P.C.B. C.I.D. by P.C. No. 20287 and 25171 of Nagpada Police Station. But the detenu denied to be a detenu. Hence, telephone message was given to the Customs Officer on 1-8-1994 at 13.10 hours. J.K. Rathod from Customs office attended the office of P





























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top