Skip to content


Baugur Rehman Vs. Union of India and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal;Customs
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Writ Appeal No. 77 of 1985
Judge
Reported in1987CriLJ23; 30(1986)DLT395
ActsForeign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 - Sections 3
AppellantBaugur Rehman
RespondentUnion of India and ors.
Advocates: Harjinder Singh,; M.C. Sekharan and; P.S. Sharma, Advs
Cases ReferredIbrahim Bachu Bafan v. State of Gujarat
Excerpt:
- - the orders of detention in respect of all the four detenus were revoked by a common note put up by senior technical officer on 14th january, 1985. the suggestion by the senior technical officer, was that since the detaining authority had failed to furnish copies of relevant documents within the time prescribed the orders had become invalid and were liable to be quashed......in these two petitioners were detained by virtue of orders passed on 17th november, 1984 by shri k.k. dwivedi, joint secretary to the government of india under section 3(1) of the conservation of foreign exchange and prevention of smuggling activities act, 1974 with a view to preventing them from dealing in smuggled goods otherwise than by transporting or concealing or keeping smuggled goods. the petitioners were detained along with two other detenus namely sumer chand and ravi sharma. the orders of detention in respect of all the four detenus were revoked by a common note put up by senior technical officer on 14th january, 1985. the suggestion by the senior technical officer, was that since the detaining authority had failed to furnish copies of relevant documents within the time.....
Judgment:

N.N. Goswamy, J.

(1) This judgment will also dispose of criminal writ No. 78 of 1985 as both these cases involve similar point. The petitioners in these two petitioners were detained by virtue of orders passed on 17th November, 1984 by Shri K.K. Dwivedi, Joint Secretary to the Government of India under section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 with a view to preventing them from dealing in smuggled goods otherwise than by transporting or concealing or keeping smuggled goods. The petitioners were detained along with two other detenus namely Sumer Chand and Ravi Sharma. The orders of detention in respect of all the four detenus were revoked by a common note put up by Senior Technical Officer on 14th January, 1985. The suggestion by the Senior Technical Officer, was that since the detaining Authority had failed to furnish copies of relevant documents within the time prescribed the orders had become invalid and were liable to be quashed. Acting on the note put up by the Senior Technical Officer, Shri K.K. Dwivedi agreed to revoke the detention orders in respect of all the four detenus by merely putting his signatures on the said note. Thus the orders of detention in respect of the two detenus were revoked by Mr. K.K. Dwivedi himself. On the same date i.e. on the 14th January, 1985 fresh orders of detention were passed in respect of the two petitioners in the present petitions. Those orders have been challenged on diverse grounds.

(2) During the course of arguments it was contended that the orders of detention are liable to be quashed for the reasons stated in our judgment delivered in criminal writ No. 92 of 1985 on August 9, 1985. That writ petition related to the detention of Sumer Chand. We have held in that case that the orders of revocation passed by Shri K.K. Dwivedi could not be considered to bs one under section 11(1) of the Act and as such no fresh detention orders could be made under section 11(2) of the Act. Reliance was placed by us on the judgment of their lordships of the Supreme Court in Ibrahim Bachu Bafan v. State of Gujarat : 1985CriLJ533

(3) The learned counsel for the parties agree that the present petitions are squarely covered by the decision in criminal writ No. 92 of 1985. thereforee the reasons recorded in the said judgment, we quash the impugned orders of detention and direct that the petitioners be set at liberty forth with unless are required to be detained by any other valid order of competent Court or Authority.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //