The State of Maharashtra Vs. Ramesh Kumar Shobhraj Jain & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 453 of 1987.
(From the Judgment and Order dated 13.2.1987 of the High Court of Bombay in Criminal W.P.No. 1058 of 1986.)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 13.2.1987 of the High Court of Bombay in Criminal W.P.No. 1058 of 1986.)
Petitioner: The State of Maharashtra
Respondent: Ramesh Kumar Shobhraj Jain & Ors.
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 453 of 1987.
(From the Judgment and Order dated 13.2.1987 of the High Court of Bombay in Criminal W.P.No. 1058 of 1986.)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 13.2.1987 of the High Court of Bombay in Criminal W.P.No. 1058 of 1986.)
Judges: G.L.OZA, B.C.RAY & K.JAGANNATHA SHETTY,JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jan 12, 1988
Appearances:
Mr. A.S.Bhasme Advocate for the Appellant.
Mr. P.H.Parekh Advocate for the Respondent.
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Detention – High Court found that all the documents were not before the detaining authority when grounds were finalised – Appellant contending that this statement of fact was wrong – The affidavit of counsel present at the hearing in the High Court not filed – The judgment of the High Court could not be assailed – Order passed by High Court upheld.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. The habeas corpus petition filed by the respondents was allowed by the judgment of the Bombay High court dated 13.2.1987 where it has been specifically stated that “It is not disputed that at the time the grounds were formulated, the detaining authority had before it documents only at Serial No.6 was actually received and considered by the detaining authority on 24th February 1986” . The documents were really received by the detaining authority on 24.2.1986 and it is on the basis of this that the learned Judge allowed the habeas corpus petition.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that this statement of fact contained in the judgment is not correct and it is contended that this has been stated in the special leave petition. But it is clear that the affidavit of the counsel who was present before the High Court of Bombay when this matter was heard, has not been filed. In such a situation, we cannot accept any statement excepting the statement made in the judgment about the facts.
3. The learned Judge on the basis of this admitted situation of facts came to the conclusion that on the date on which the grounds were finalised all the documents on which reliance is placed were not before the detaining authority and in such a situation the judgment of the High Court could not be assailed. The only contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant was that this statement of fact as quoted above that it is not disputed that all documents were not before the detaining authority is not correct. Except this no other ground is raised and as stated earlier this contention cannot be accepted without an affidavit filed by the learned counsel who was present at the hearing in the High Court. We therefore see no reason to entertain this appeal. It is therefore dismissed. The order passed by the High Court is maintained. It appears that the respondent has been taken into custody under orders of this Court on grant of leave. It is therefore directed that he be set at liberty forthwith.
Appeal dismissed.
1. The habeas corpus petition filed by the respondents was allowed by the judgment of the Bombay High court dated 13.2.1987 where it has been specifically stated that “It is not disputed that at the time the grounds were formulated, the detaining authority had before it documents only at Serial No.6 was actually received and considered by the detaining authority on 24th February 1986” . The documents were really received by the detaining authority on 24.2.1986 and it is on the basis of this that the learned Judge allowed the habeas corpus petition.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that this statement of fact contained in the judgment is not correct and it is contended that this has been stated in the special leave petition. But it is clear that the affidavit of the counsel who was present before the High Court of Bombay when this matter was heard, has not been filed. In such a situation, we cannot accept any statement excepting the statement made in the judgment about the facts.
3. The learned Judge on the basis of this admitted situation of facts came to the conclusion that on the date on which the grounds were finalised all the documents on which reliance is placed were not before the detaining authority and in such a situation the judgment of the High Court could not be assailed. The only contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant was that this statement of fact as quoted above that it is not disputed that all documents were not before the detaining authority is not correct. Except this no other ground is raised and as stated earlier this contention cannot be accepted without an affidavit filed by the learned counsel who was present at the hearing in the High Court. We therefore see no reason to entertain this appeal. It is therefore dismissed. The order passed by the High Court is maintained. It appears that the respondent has been taken into custody under orders of this Court on grant of leave. It is therefore directed that he be set at liberty forthwith.
Appeal dismissed.
