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

1978 Supreme(Guj) 117

Gujarat High Court
Judgename :A.D.DESAI, A.M.AHMADI
CHATURBHAI BECHARBHAI PATEL - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
S.CRI.A. 107 of 1978
Decided On : 10/17/1978

Advocates Appeared: G.K.SUKHVANI, G.T.NANAVATI, JAYSHRI C.BHATT, S.H.SANJANWALA

Headnote:Conservation of Foreign Exchange & Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974-Sec.3 (1)-Guidelines have no efficacy in law.

       If the statute empowers the State Government and its officers specially empowered in this behalf to order detention of any person, the Central Government cannot by issuing guidelines carve out a category or a class of persons described as organisers, financiers or persons working behind the scene and reserve unto itself the power of detention of such persons and thereby abridge the power of the State Government or its officers. Such guidelines can, in our opinioin, have no efficacy in law and the detaining authority cannot be permitted to take shelter under such guidelines which are contrary to the provisions of the statute.

A. D. DESAI, A. M. AHMADI, J.

( 1 ) THREE brothers Kantilal Bechardas Patel Ishwarlal Bechardas Patel and Ambalal Bechardas Patel all partners of a firm of Angadias trading in the name of Angadia Patel Ishwarlal Bechardas and Co. have been detained under three separate detention orders all of 5th May 1978 by the Additional Chief Secretary in the Home Department of the Government of Gujarat in exercise of powers conferred by sub- sec. (1) of sec. 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act 1974 (COFEPOSA) with a view to preventing them from engaging in transporting smuggled goods. The fourth brother Chaturbhai Becharbhai Patel has filed these three Habeas Corpus writ petitions challenging the orders of detention-Ann. A to each petition on the ground that the detention order in respect of the three detenus is illegal mala fide and not warranted in law and for a consequential direction to the respondents to forthwith set the detenus at liberty. As. common questions of law and fact arise in all these three writ petitions. we propose to dispose them of by this common judgment.

( 2 ) THE grounds for detention-Ann. C to each petition also dated * * * * * * * * firm of the three brothers in a sealed Kamaria which was kept in what das popularly known as Jokham Theli and was brought and delivered to Ambalal at Ahmedabad. Ambalal then arranged to send the said gold through either the said employee or another employee of the firm by a State transport bus to his brother Kantilal at Rajkot who in turn delivered the gold to one Chandulal Jethalal Bhindi @ Chandu Bhindi in Rajkot. The payment for the gold was received from the aforesaid Chandu Shindi which was sent to Ishwarlal at Bombay for payment to Jadavji through the employees of the firm. The remittances were shown in code in the invoices Bharatias of the firm. It is the allegation of the respondents that during the period from 30th December 1977 to 31st January 1978 remittances to the tune of Rs. 5 83 0 were made by Ishwarlal to the suppliers of gold at Bombay. In view of this modus operandi adopted by the three detenus and their employees a watch was kept on their activity and in pursuance of this watch an employee of the firm namely Kantilal Hargovandas Patel was apprehended with a packet containing 10 gold bars of foreign origin weighing 100 to lash valued at Rs. 79 0 on 1st February 1978 from the State Transport. Bus Stand at Ahmedabad while he was on his way to Rajkot. The details leading to this red handed apprehension of the employee Kantilal Hargovandas Patel have been set out in the grounds of detention furnished to the detenus as under: On 31st January 1978 the officers of the customs department at Ahmedabad were in possession of information that the three detenus were engaged in transporting gold of foreign origin from Bombay to Rajkot. They had come to know that the employees/carriers of the firm of the three detenus leave with gold from Bombay for Ahmedabad by the Gujarat Mail and on their reaching Ahmedabad the gold was transported to Rajkot next morning by the State Transport bus leaving for Rajkot around 8. 00 Oclock. The customs officers had also learnt that the detenu Kantilal was receiving the gold at Rajkot through the employees of the firm and he was selling the said gold at Rajkot to Chandu Bhindi and other purchasers of gold. In pursuance of this is information which the officers of the customs department at Ahmedabad had received vigil was kept at the State Transport Bus Stand at Ahmedabad on the morning of 1 February 1978 At the bus stand that morning they apprehended Kantilal Hargovandas Patel an employee of the firm of the detenus with a blue coloured cloth bag and the search of that cloth bag revealed that he was carrying 10 gold bars bearing foreign marks each of 10 to lash of the total value of Rs. 79 0 The customs officer seized the said 10 gold bars in the reasonable belief that these bars were smuggled goods liabl
















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

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