Don’t miss the latest developments in business and finance.

The detenu argued that the impugned order was issued

Image
Press Trust of India
Last Updated : Feb 11 2013 | 2:30 PM IST
after inordinate and inexcusable delay on May 13, 2012, i.E nine months. Even after the show cause notice the impugned order was delayed by two months. Thus his detention was malafide. He contended that goods found by Customs belonged to Syed Ali Syed Madar, who was travelling with him on the same PNR number mentioned in the ticket. The goods were packed by him in the place of Karim Baba on way to Dubai Airport. Sayed was known to the detenue and so the latter did not object to goods checked in his name at airport as PNR number was same. The detenu said he was not aware about the goods contained in his bag until it was opened at Mumbai Airport. In the Customs gate pass the detenue had mentioned only one checked in baggage and one hand baggage. The detaining authority, without reading the statements recorded or by misreading the statements, wrongly issued the detention order which resulted in unnecessary incarceration of the detenue, while the main Karim Baba was spared, he contended. He submitted that the show cause notice and the reply dated February 20, 2012, sent thereto was not placed before the authority issuing the impugned order. Thus a vital document was not placed before the authority nor was copy thereof furnished to the detenue. Hence, safeguards in Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India were violated.

Also Read

First Published: Feb 11 2013 | 2:30 PM IST

Next Story