Preventive detention under COFEPOSA for alleged gold smuggling was upheld. The court rejected challenges concerning omitted documents, non-supply of materials, delay in issuing and executing the order, and disposal of representations. The writ petition was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
“C.R.”
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR WEDNESDAY,THE 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022/18TH KARTHIKA,1944 WP(CRL.) NO. 323 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
MUHAMMED FAISAL
AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.KUNHI MOIDEENKUTTY, PALASSERY PULIKKAL HOUSE, A.R.NAGAR.P.O, NEAR P.C.MASJID, THIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 676305.
BY ADVS. R.ANIL M.SUNILKUMAR SUJESH MENON V.B. THOMAS ABRAHAM (NILACKAPPILLIL) THOMAS SABU VADAKEKUT MAHESH BHANU S. S.LAKSHMI SANKAR RESSIL LONAN
RESPONDENTS:
2
W.P.(Crl.) No.323 of 2022
3 DIRECTOR GENERAL, CENTRAL BOARD OF ECONOMIC INTELLIGENCE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, 6TH FLOOR, B-WING, JANPATH BHAVAN, JANPATH, NEW DELHI, PIN – 110001.
4 THE JOINT DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE, COCHIN ZONAL UNIT, BUILDING NO.32-641A,VYLOPPILLY ROAD, ST.THOMAS LANE, PALLINADA, PALARIVATTOM, COCHIN, PIN – 682025.
5 THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695012.
BY ADVS. R1-R4 BY SRI.JAISHANKAR V.NAIR, CGC R4 BY S.MANU, ADDL.DGP R5 BY SRI.K.A.ANAS, GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 18.10.2022, THE COURT ON 09.11.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
W.P.(Crl.) No.323 of 2022
“C.R.”
JUDGMENT
Ajithkumar, J
The Joint Secretary to the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) on 27.09.2019 in exercise of the powers under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for brevity 'the COFEPOSA Act') issued Ext.P1 ordering to detain Sri.Abdul Hakkeem P.P. @ Abdul Hakkim P.P. and keep him in custody in the Central Prison and Correctional Home, Thiruvananthapuram. The order was executed on 28.12.2021. In compliance with the provisions of Section 3(3) of the COFEPOSA Act read with Clause (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution of India the grounds of detention along with the documents mentioned and relied upon therein were communicated to the detenu. On receipt of the detention order and the grounds of detention, the detenu submitted representation dated 27.01.2022 to the Joint Secretary (COFEPOSA) and to the Central Government addressed to the Director General,
4
W.P.(Crl.) No.323 of 2022
Central Economic Intelligence Bureau. The representations were rejected on 04.02.2022 and 29.03.2022, respectively. Thereupon this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed, on behalf of the detenu, by his brother.
5
W.P.(Crl.) No.323 of 2022
Based on specific intelligence, two passengers viz. Shri.Sunil Kumar Mohanakumaran Thampi and Smt Sareena Shaji, who arrived at Trivandrum International Airport on 13.05.2019 from Dubai were intercepted at the exit gate of Customs Arrival Hall by the officers of DRI. Their baggage
6
W.P.(Crl.) No.323 of 2022
were searched. From the two hand baggage of Shri.Sunil Kumar 25 numbers of Gold bars of 24 Carat purity, totally weighing 24998.61 grams valued at Rs.8,17,45,455/- were seized and from the hand baggage of Smt.Sareena Shaji seized a Declaration Receipt made before Dubai Customs in respect of 24 Kgs. of gold in her name. Voluntary statements of both Shri.Sunil Kumar Mohanakumaran Thampi and Smt.Sareena Shaji were recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, wherein both of them admitted those facts and revealed that they were members of a smuggling syndicate which smuggled gold through Thiruvananthapuram International Airport. Smt.Sareena Shaji admitted that gold was being smuggled with the help of a Customs Officer and that gold was being smuggled for one Hakkeem, a native of Malappuram. Whereabouts of Shri.Hakkeem were claimed traced and it was revealed that Shri.Abdul Hakkeem P.P., the detenu, was working as Manager of a wholesale jewellery firm viz M/s. PPM Chains in Thiruvananthapuram, and that he is the nephew of Sri. Muhammed Ali Haji P.P., Director of the firm M/s.PPM Chains.
7
W.P.(Crl.) No.323 of 2022
8
W.P.(Crl.) No.323 of 2022
was received by his brother and father jointly. The postal authorities returned the summons with an endorsement ‘Absent. Intimation to father’. Notice asking the detinu to appear was published in the Official Gazette as well as News Papers having circulation in Malappuram and Thiruvananthapuram Districts. The detenu, despite issuing repeated summons and show cause notices and publications, did not oblige. It is stated that all the efforts to enforce his attendance failed. Hence the order of detention could not be executed in time. On the direction of the Detaining Authority, the Sponsoring Authority filed a petition on 23.11.2020 before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Parappanangadi under Section 7 of the COFEPOSA Act for initiating proceedings to declare him absconding as provided in Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and to take the necessary follow up action. While the said proceedings were in progress, Kerala Police executed the detention order and Sri.Abdul Hakkim P.P. was lodged in the Central Prison and Correctional Home, Thiruvananthapuram on 28.12.2021.
9
W.P.(Crl.) No.323 of 2022
10
W.P.(Crl.) No.323 of 2022
the Advisory Board. The Advisory Board forwarded its opinion to the Government on 11.03.2022. Upon consideration of the opinion of the Advisory Board, the Government confirmed detention of Sri.Abdul Hakkim P.P. for one year from 28.12.2021. On 29.03.2022, the Government rejected the representation of the detenu dated 27.01.2022 and the detenu was intimated that fact on 30.03.2022.
on many grounds. The essential grounds for attack which are pursued by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner are:
11
W.P.(Crl.) No.323 of 2022
Ground No. (i) - All relevant and necessary documents were not produced before the detaining authority.
SCC 545] the Apex Court held that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority shall be on consideration of all the relevant materials placed before it by the Sponsoring Authority. In that case, the detainee had no case that the Sponsoring Authority did not place before the Detaining Authority any material in its possession which is relevant and material for the purpose and such material, if considered by the Detaining Authority, might have resulted in taking a different view in the matter. The contention was that the Detaining Authority should have taken further steps before being satisfied that a case for detention under the COFEPOSA Act has been made out against the detenu. The Apex Court observed that whether the detention order suffers from non application of mind by the Detaining Authority is not a matter to be examined according to any straight jacket formula or set principles. It depends on the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the activities alleged against the detenu,
12
W.P.(Crl.) No.323 of 2022
the materials collected in support of such allegations, the propensity and potentiality of the detenu in indulging in such activities, etc. The Act does not lay down any set parameters for arriving at the subjective satisfaction by the Detaining Authority. It was accordingly held that keeping in view the purpose for which the enactment is made and the purpose it is intended to achieve, the Parliament in its wisdom, has not laid down any set standards for the Detaining Authority to decide whether an order of detention should be passed against a person. The matter is left to the subjective satisfaction of the Competent Authority”.
13
W.P.(Crl.) No.323 of 2022
14
W.P.(Crl.) No.323 of 2022
is contended that had those visuals been produced before the Detaining Authority there could not have been such a subjective satisfaction for the detention. Non-production of the visuals therefore is said to have vitiated Ext. P1.
15
W.P.(Crl.) No.323 of 2022
Sunil Kumar has a decisive impact while taking a decision whether or not Sri. Abdul Hakkeem was to be detained. Hence the same should have been part of the documents relied upon by the Sponsoring Authority. As regards the copies of the complaints said to have been submitted by Smt.Sareena Shaji and Sri.M.Sunil Kumar against DRI officials before the Magistrate also similar contentions are raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
16
W.P.(Crl.) No.323 of 2022
and Sri. M.Sunil Kumar also, a similar stand has been taken by the respondents.
17
W.P.(Crl.) No.323 of 2022
for the purpose of being returned to him on his leaving India. So, if the intention of Smt.Sareena Shaji and Sri.M. Sunil Kumar was to declare possession of gold and take it back, and the seizure was before they reached the customs counter; the CCTV visuals of the exit counter would have relevance.
18
W.P.(Crl.) No.323 of 2022
on record to probabilise that those records/documents reached the possession of the Sponsoring Authority. Also, the learned counsel for the petitioner did not point out any fact or circumstance suggesting that on account of inaction on the part of the Sponsoring Authority such records/documents did not come to their possession.
SCC 148] the Apex Court considered the question whether withholding of a retraction statement where confession statement is produced would vitiate the decision of the Detaining Authority. The Apex Court held in Paragraph No.20 of the said decision thus:
“20. There can be no doubt, it was not necessary, while considering the case of the petitioner-detenu, to place all or any of the document which is relevant relied in the proceedings of a co-accused, but where the Sponsoring Authority opts out of his own volition to place any document of the other co-detenu, not merely as a narration of fact but reiterating in details the confession made by him, then it cannot be said it would not prejudice the case of the detenu. If this has been done it was incumbent for the Sponsoring
19
W.P.(Crl.) No.323 of 2022
Authority to have placed their retraction also. xxxxx What was the necessity of reproducing the details of the confessional statement of another co-accused in the present case? If the Sponsoring Authority would not have placed this then possibly no legal grievance could have been made by the detenu. But once the Sponsoring Authority having chosen to place the confessional statement, then it was incumbent on it to place the retraction also made by them. In our considered opinion, its non-placement affects the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority. This Court has time and again laid down that the Sponsoring Authority should place all the relevant documents before the Detaining Authority. It should not withhold any such document based on his own opinion. All documents, which are relevant, which have bearing on the issue, which are likely to affect the mind of the Detaining Authority should be placed before him. Of course a document which has no link with the issue cannot be construed as relevant.”
were not in the possession of the Sponsoring Authority. Regarding Ext.P11, the respondents contended that they did not come across such a document. Ext.P11 was produced by the petitioner. How the petitioner got that copy and whether it
20
W.P.(Crl.) No.323 of 2022
was really sent, etc. are not divulged. In the absence of anything further to show that such a representation was even submitted by Smt.Sareena Shaji, the contention of the respondents can only be believed. Further, in Prakash
Chandra Mehta v. Commissioner and Secretary, Government of Kerala [(1985) Supp SCC 144] the Apex Court held that if there are other facts independent of the confessional statement which can reasonably lead to the subjective satisfaction, non-production of the retracted confessional statement does not invalidate the order of detention. So, non-production of Ext. P11 at any rate does not affect the legality of Ext.P1 detention order.
21
W.P.(Crl.) No.323 of 2022
absence of such a document, the petitioner cannot have such a grievance. It is seen that Smt.Sareena Shaji and Sri. M. Sunil Kumar were sent for medical examination by the Magistrate since they complained of ill treatment by DRI officials. But there is nothing on record to show that the Magistrate had received any written complaint or he had written down the complaint or had taken any proceedings in that matter. Every document relating to their production before the Magistrate, remand, etc. was included in the RUDs. In short, it cannot be said that there was such a document for a copy of which could be placed before the Detaining Authority.
22
W.P.(Crl.) No.323 of 2022
vitiated at least prima facie. We therefore hold that Ext.P1 order of detention is not liable to be set aside on the ground that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority is vitiated for want of consideration of the documents mentioned by the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner in that respect is rejected.
Ground No. (ii) - Delay in passing the order of detention
23
W.P.(Crl.) No.323 of 2022
time or ever, for the purpose of investigation despite issuing repeated notices/summons. The Detaining Authority was bound to consider all the connected documents before passing that common order. After considering the chronology of incidents from 13.05.2019, the date of arrest and seizure till the culmination of the proceedings for issuance of the detention order on 27.09.2019, we are convinced that there occurred no unjustified delay.
Ground No. (iii) - Delay in execution of the order of detention.
24
W.P.(Crl.) No.323 of 2022
officials took all possible efforts to apprehend the detenu. But only because he absconded from the process of law, the order of detention could not be executed. The respondents would contend that the Sponsoring Authority initiated steps for declaring the detenu absconding and the follow up steps of attachment of his property as provided in Sections 82, 83, 84, 85 and 87 of the Code as allowed under Section 7 of the COFEPOSA Act. From a perusal of the file, it is seen that the order directing surrender which obliges the detenu to appear before the police authorities for execution was published in two newspapers; one in Malayalam and the other in English, besides the Gazette notification. Despite all such efforts, the detenu eluded from the process of law.
is that he was very much available in his house and he pointed out the following aspects in support of that plea:
25
W.P.(Crl.) No.323 of 2022
Nadu [(1979) 1 SCC 465], the Apex Court explained that there must be a live and proximate link between the grounds of detention alleged by the Detaining Authority and the purpose of detention, namely, prevention of smuggling activities. The link would be treated as snapped if there is a long and unexplained delay between the date of the order of detention and the arrest of the detenu. In such a case the order of detention may have to be struck down unless the grounds indicate a fresh application of the mind of the Detaining Authority to the new situation and the changed circumstances. It was also held that where the delay is not only adequately explained but is found to be the result of the recalcitrant or refractory conduct of the detenu in evading arrest, there is warrant to consider the 'link' not snapped but strengthened. This principle has been reiterated in Mukesh
Tikaji Bora v. Union of India [(2007) 9 SCC 28].
26
W.P.(Crl.) No.323 of 2022
[ILR 2000 (1) Ker.207], this Court following the principle laid down in Bhawarlal Ganeshmalji (supra) held that in view of the object of preventive detention, it becomes very imperative on the part of the Detaining Authority as well as the executing authorities to be very vigilant and keep their eyes skinned but not to turn a blind eye in securing the detenu and executing the detention order because any indifferent attitude on the part of the Detaining Authority or executing authority will defeat the very purpose of the preventive action and turn the detention order as a dead letter and frustrate entire proceedings. There must be a live and proximate link between the grounds of detention alleged by the Detaining Authority and avowed purpose of detention, namely, prevention of smuggling activities. The link is snapped if there is a long and unexplained delay between the date of order of detention and arrest of the detenu. In such cases, an order of detention can be struck down unless grounds indicate a fresh application of mind of the Detaining
27
W.P.(Crl.) No.323 of 2022
Authority to the new situation and changed circumstances. But where delay is not only adequately explained but is found to be the result of recalcitrant or refractory conduct of the detenu in evading arrest, there is warrant to consider the link not snapped but strengthened.
Suraiya v. Commissioner and Secretary to Government
[1995 Cri.LJ 4088] this Court held that though action under Section 7 of the COFEPOSA Act is not mandatory, the failure to take action under the section gives scope for doubt regarding the assertion that detenu had absconded or concealed himself to avoid the arrest. When the statute prescribes for such an action against a recalcitrant person the failure to have recourse to the same cannot be overlooked as a mere omission especially in a case where there is inordinate delay between the order of detention and its execution.
28
W.P.(Crl.) No.323 of 2022
29
W.P.(Crl.) No.323 of 2022
could have taken appropriate steps under Section 7 of the Act for securing the arrest of the husband of the appellant, but did not. The order of detention was therefore held to be invalid.
is that the detenu was absconding from the very date of seizure on 13.05.2019 and for that reason alone the order of detention could not be executed. Steps taken to procure his presence have been narrated in the objection. Except during March 2020 till August 2020, the period during which the Country and entire system were at standstill on account of COVID-19 pandemic there has been tireless efforts to get the presence of the detenu. The instances pointed out by the detenu to contend that he was very much available, namely, he cast vote in Assembly elections, he took COVID vaccination, he received the Show Cause Notice (it was received by his brother and father) and he was taking care of his pregnant wife are not proof of showing that he was accessible and available to be apprehended. It is true that he
30
W.P.(Crl.) No.323 of 2022
himself surrendered before the Police. From the steps taken by the authorities including to declare him absconding as provided in Section 7 of the COFEPOSA Act it is quite evident that he surrendered having left with no possibility for him to evade the process of law and avoid an arrest.
31
W.P.(Crl.) No.323 of 2022
proclamation issued under Section 87 of the old Criminal Procedure Code (Section 82 of the new Code) lies on the accused.
32
W.P.(Crl.) No.323 of 2022
proclamation was published in several leading English and local language daily newspapers. His photograph was exhibited in cinema halls. Reward of Rs.5000/- was also announced for apprehension. Despite all this effort, he could not be arrested until he surrendered on 1st February 1978.
The Apex Court on considering the steps taken by the authorities to nab the detenu, the Court rejected his submission based on the delay in the execution of the order of detention.
33
W.P.(Crl.) No.323 of 2022
34
W.P.(Crl.) No.323 of 2022
were taken. Under such circumstances, we find that the delay in the execution of the detention order is satisfactorily explained. Further, it is trite that an absconding detenu cannot cite the delay in the execution of the order to contend that the detention order is liable to be quashed.
Ground No. iv) - Copies of all the relied upon and relevant documents were not furnished to the detenu.
of the complaint against DRI officials submitted by Smt.Sareena Shaji and Sri.M.Sunil Kumar before the Magistrate were withheld by the Sponsoring Authority and thereby escaped consideration by the Detaining Authority. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that apart from the said documents para-wise comments submitted by the sponsoring authority before the Advisory Board also was not furnished to the detenu and that had prejudiced his right to represent and therefore, Ext.P1 does require interference.
35
W.P.(Crl.) No.323 of 2022
36
W.P.(Crl.) No.323 of 2022
47. The Apex Court in Radhakrishnan Prabhakaran
v. State of Tamil Nadu and others [(2000) 9 SCC 170].
held at paragraph 8:
"We make it clear that there is no legal requirement that a copy of every document mentioned in the order shall invariably be supplied to the detenu. What is important is that copies of only such of those documents as have been relied on by the Detaining Authority for reaching the satisfaction that preventive detention of the detenu is necessary shall be supplied to him"
[(2005) 7 SCC 70] the Apex Court held that the deten9u has a right to be supplied with the material documents on which the reliance is placed by the Detaining Authority for passing the detention order but the detention order will not be vitiated, if the document although referred to in the order is not supplied which is not relied upon by the Detaining Authority for forming its opinion or was made basis for passing the order of detention. Crux of the matter lies in whether the detenu's right to make a representation against the order of detention, is hampered by non-supply of the particular document.
37
W.P.(Crl.) No.323 of 2022
38
W.P.(Crl.) No.323 of 2022
depend on the facts of each case. There is no charm in the expressions "relied on", "referred to", or “based upon” documents. The Court proceeded to hold that the detenu has the right to receive all documents which are relied upon in the grounds of detention and such other documents/materials to enable him to make an effective representation against the order of detention. The Court after referring to the observations in Waheeda Ashraf [ILR 2021 (3) Ker.751] held,-
“It is clear from the grounds of detention that no CCTV footage has been relied upon or referred to sustain the order of detention. That being the position, we are of the clear view that when the Court is concerned only with the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority based on materials relied upon or referred to in the grounds of detention, the question of supply of CCTV footage in order to prove the innocence of the detenu is really not a part of the right conferred on him under Art. 22(5) of the Constitution of India. If the materials referred to and relied upon are sufficient to reach a subjective satisfaction regarding the requirement of detention, no other material is required to be provided to the
39
W.P.(Crl.) No.323 of 2022
detenu. The right to make a representation must be based on the materials referred to, or relied upon, by the detaining authority to reach its subjective satisfaction.”
Ground No. v) - Delay in disposing the representations
40
W.P.(Crl.) No.323 of 2022
specially empowered for that purpose, the person detained has a right to make a representation to the said officer, and the said officer is obliged to consider the said representation, and the failure on his part to do so would result in denial of the right conferred on the person detained to make a representation. Further, such right of the detenu has been taken to be in addition to the right to make the representation to the Government concerned.
v. Union of India [(1991) 1 SCC 476] , a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court held that the time imperative for consideration of representation can never be absolute or obsessive. It depends upon the necessities and the time at which the representation is made. The representation may be received before the case is referred to the Advisory Board, but there may not be time to dispose of the representation before referring the case to the Advisory Board. In that situation the representation must also be forwarded to the Advisory Board along with the case of the detenu. The representation may be
41
W.P.(Crl.) No.323 of 2022
received after the case of the detenu is referred to the Board. Even in this situation the representation should be forwarded to the Advisory Board provided the Board has not concluded the proceedings. In both the situations there is no question of consideration of the representation before the receipt of report of the Advisory Board. Nor it could be said that the Government has delayed consideration of the representation, unnecessarily awaiting the report of the Board. It is proper for
the Government in such situations to await the report of the Board. If the Board finds no material for detention on the merits and reports accordingly, the Government is bound to revoke the order of detention. Secondly, even if the Board expresses the view that there is sufficient cause for detention, the Government after considering the representation could revoke the detention.
42
W.P.(Crl.) No.323 of 2022
Judge Bench of the Apex Court explained the rationale of the law laid down in Abdulla Kunhi (supra) and the majority decision on the above aspect is contained in paragraph No.23, which reads as follows:
“23. It must also be borne in mind that in all cases, the appropriate Government would be acting in two capacities; one while considering the representation and the other while taking appropriate decision after a report is received from the Advisory Board that there is sufficient cause for detention. Since the decision would be required to be taken in these two capacities, it was observed in K.M. Abdulla Kunhi [(1991) 1 SCC 476] , that it would be proper for the appropriate Government to wait till the report is received from the Advisory Board in cases dealt with in paragraph 16 of the decision. But such may not be the case with the Detaining Authority who is a specially empowered officer.”
(13) SCALE 250]. In that case, the representation of the detenu dated 18.05.2021 was disposed of by the Central
43
W.P.(Crl.) No.323 of 2022
Government on 24.06.2021, immediately after the Advisory Board rendering its opinion, which was on 15.06.2021. Therefore the question whether the Central Government could wait for the opinion of the Advisory Board before taking the representation for consideration did not crop up before the Court. The delay in disposing of the representation by the State Government and the delay in communicating to the detenu, the fact of rejection of his representation by both the State and Central Governments were found to be reasons sufficient to invalidate the order of detention. The Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court however reiterated the ratio in Ankit Ashok Jalan (supra).
44
W.P.(Crl.) No.323 of 2022
of immediacy and cannot wait for receipt of the report of the Advisory Board.
representation from the detenu on 28.01.2022. The Sponsoring Authority submitted para-wise remarks on the representations on 03.02.2022. By that time, the matter was pending before the Advisory Board having it been referred on
45
W.P.(Crl.) No.323 of 2022
17.01.2022. Therefore the Government waited for the report of the Advisory Board. On a perusal of the relevant files, it is seen that immediately on receipt of the report of the Advisory Board, the Central Government on 21.03.2022 in exercise of its powers under Section 8(f) of COFEPOSA Act confirmed the order of detention. It was accordingly ordered that Sri.Abdul Hakkeem P.P. @ Abdul Hakkim P.P. shall be detained for a period of one year from 28.12.2021. Thereafter, the representation was considered by the Director General, CEIB and disposed of as per the order dated 29.03.2022. On the very next day, i.e., on 30.03.2022, the detenu was informed as per Ext.P9 memorandum that his representation to the Central Government was rejected. Therefore, in the light of the law laid down in the aforesaid decisions, the obligation cast on the respondents is to explain the delay from 14.03.2022 till 29.03.2022.
46
W.P.(Crl.) No.323 of 2022
time taken for disposal of the representation by the Government is inordinate and that necessarily vitiates Ext.P1. Therefore, it is contended that continued detention of the detenu is illegal and he is liable to be released forthwith.
District Magistrate, Beed [(1987) 4 SCC 58] in order to contend that the delay occasioned in this case is unjustified and there occurred prejudice to the detenu. In Mohinuddin it was held that when the life and liberty of a citizen is involved, it is expected that the Government ensure that the constitutional safeguards embodied in Article 22(5) are strictly observed. The gravity of the evil to the community resulting from anti-social activities can never furnish an adequate reason for invading the personal liberty of a citizen, except in accordance with the procedure established by the Constitution and the laws.
62. In Jasbir Singh v. Governor, Delhi and others
[(1999) 4 SCC 228] it was held that there is no inflexible
Rule that delay in considering the representation in all cases
47
W.P.(Crl.) No.323 of 2022
ipso facto would be sufficient to render the detention void. Further what can be held to be an unexplained delay in disposing of the representation would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The right to make a representation is undoubtedly a Constitutional right of the detenu and such a representation should be considered as expeditiously as possible. But what is reasonable expedition will depend upon the facts of each case.
SCC 417] the Apex Court held that if delay was caused on account of any indifference or lapse in considering the representation, such delay will adversely affect further detention of the prisoner. In other words, it is for the authority concerned to explain the delay, if any, in disposing the representation. It is not enough to say that the delay was very short. Even longer delay can as well be explained. So the test is not the duration or range of delay, but how it is explained by the authority concerned.
48
W.P.(Crl.) No.323 of 2022
49
W.P.(Crl.) No.323 of 2022
65. In Fitrat Raza Khan v. State of U.P. [(1982) 2
SCC 449] the petitioner made a representation dated August 8, 1981, through the Superintendent, Central Jail, Moradabad. It was actually handed over to the Superintendent, Central Jail, on August 10, 1981, and he, on the same day, sent it to the District Magistrate. The District Magistrate forwarded the representation together with his comments to the Home Secretary on August 13, 1981. The representation was received in the Home Department the next day. It could not be attended to on August 15, which was the Independence Day, and on the 16th , being a Sunday. The representation was scrutinised in the Secretariat for three days between the 17th and the 19th, and the notings on the file were made. The file was perused by the Joint Secretary, Home Department, on August 19. On August 20, the Law Department was consulted. The file was placed before the Home Secretary on August 21, who placed it before the Chief Minister. The Chief minister took two days to study the file and ultimately, passed an order rejecting the representation on August 24. The Apex Court after considering the said cronology
50
W.P.(Crl.) No.323 of 2022
of events held that the representation made by the detenu was considered by the State Government at all levels, and there was no undue delay in its consideration.
51
W.P.(Crl.) No.323 of 2022
Secretary examined them and with his comments, they were forwarded to the Minister of State for Revenue on 31.10.1988, since 29th and 30th October, 1988 were holidays. The Minister of State for Revenue with his comments forwarded the representation on the same day, i.e., 31.10.1988 to the Finance Minister. The Finance Minister considered and rejected the representation on 01-11-1988 and the file was received in the Office on 02-11-1988 and on the same day, a memorandum rejecting the representation was sent to the detenu. From the said facts the Apex Court held that the representation was considered most expeditiously and there is no "negligence or callous inaction or avoidable red-tapism". The contention regarding delay was accordingly rejected.
52
W.P.(Crl.) No.323 of 2022
covering letter dated 11.03.2022 and was received by the Central Government on 14.03.2022. From the files made available for our perusal, we find that the representation of the detenu was immediately processed. 17.03.2022 was a restricted holiday and 18.03.2022 was a holiday in connection with Holi. 19.03.2022 and 20.03.2022 were also holidays being Saturday and Sunday. On 21.03.2022, the Finance Minister confirmed the order of detention. On receipt of the order of confirmation, the matter was placed before the Director General of CIEB for consideration. 26.03.2022 and 27.03.2022 were holidays being Saturday and Sunday. Immediately thereafter on 29.03.2022, the Director General after considering the representation in the light of the comments submitted by the Sponsoring Authority and other materials on record rejected it. On the very next day, 30.03.2022, the detenu was informed of the rejection of his representation. The above facts would reveal that there was no lethargy on the part of the authorities of the Central Government and no inordinate delay in disposing of Ext.P4
53
W.P.(Crl.) No.323 of 2022
representation submitted by the detenu. Therefore the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in this respect also is untenable.
To sum up, none of the grounds put forward by the petitioner to challenge validity of Ext.P1 and to abrogate it can be accepted. Therefore the writ petition fails. Accordingly it is dismissed.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE
pv/dkr
54
W.P.(Crl.) No.323 of 2022
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 323/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES
| EXHIBIT-P1 | THE | TRUE COP | Y O | F THE ORDER OF THE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| JOIN | T SECRET | ARY | TO GOVERNMENT OF | |
| INDI | A, UNDE | R | SECTION 3(1) OF | |
| CONS | ERVATION | OF | FOREIGN EXCHANGE AND | |
| PREV | ENTION OF | SMU | GGLING ACTIVITIES ACT | |
| EXHIBIT-P2 | THE | TRUE COPY | OF | GROUNDS OF DETENTION |
| EXHIBIT-P3 | THE UPON |
TRUE COPY DOCUMENTS |
OF IN |
THE LIST OF RELIED GROUNDS OF DETENTION |
| EXHIBIT-P4 | THE CENT |
TRUE COPY RAL GOVERN |
OF MEN |
REPRESENTATION TO THE T |
| EXHIBIT-P5 | THE DETA |
TRUE COPY INING AUTH |
OF ORI |
REPRESENTATION TO THE TY |
| EXHIBIT-P6 | THE OF T 2022 |
TRUE COPY HE CENTRA |
OF L G |
THE REFERENCE LETTER OVERNMENT DATED 17-1- |
| EXHIBIT-P7 | THE 1ST BOAR |
TRUE COPY RESPONDENT D |
OF TO |
THE COMMUNICATION OF THE HON'BLE ADVISORY |
| EXHIBIT-P8 | THE RESP |
TRUE COP ONDENT DAT |
Y O ED |
F THE ORDER OF 1ST 21-3-2022 |
| EXHIBIT-P9 | THE 30-3 |
TRUE COPY -2022 |
OF | THE MEMORANDUM DATED |
| EXHIBIT-P10 | THE 4-2- |
TRUE COPY 2022 |
OF | THE MEMORANDUM DATED |
| EXHIBIT-P11 | THE | TRUE COPY | OF | THE REPRESENTATION OF |
| SARE | ENA SHAJI | DA | TED 17-8-2019 TO THE | |
| FIRS | T RESPONDE | NT | AND TO THE PRINCIPAL | |
| DIRE | CTOR GENE | RAL | FOR DIRECTORATE OF | |
| REVE | NUE INTELL | IGE | NCE, NEW DELHI |
55
W.P.(Crl.) No.323 of 2022
EXHIBIT-P12 THE TRUE COPY OF THEVACCINATION CERTIFICATE OF COVID-19 OF THE DETENUE
EXHIBIT-P13 THE TRUE COPIES OF THE MEDICAL RECORD OF MUBASHIRA HAKKIM, WIFE OF THE DETENUE
3 issues framed by the court
Did non-placement and non-supply of the disputed documents vitiate the detention or impair the right to make an effective representation?
Did delay in issuing or executing the detention order invalidate it?
Was there unjustified delay in the Central Government's disposal of the detenu's representation?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gurdev Singh v. Union of IndiaApplied¶66
Gurdev Singh v. Union of India [(2002) 1 SCC 545] · Who else cites this
A. Sowkath Ali v. Union of IndiaApplied¶102
A. Sowkath Ali v. Union of India [(2000) 7 SCC 148] · Who else cites this
Prakash Chandra Mehta v. Commissioner and Secretary, Government of KeralaApplied¶113
Prakash Chandra Mehta v. Commissioner and Secretary, Government of Kerala [(1985) Supp SCC 144] · Who else cites this
Waheeda Ashraf and others v. Union of India and othersFollowed¶127
Waheeda Ashraf and others v. Union of India and others [ILR 2021 (3) Ker 751] · Who else cites this
Bhawarlal Ganeshmalji v. State of Tamil NaduApplied¶141
Bhawarlal Ganeshmalji v. State of Tamil Nadu [(1979) 1 SCC 465], · Who else cites this
Mukesh Tikaji Bora v. Union of IndiaRelied on¶142
Mukesh Tikaji Bora v. Union of India [(2007) 9 SCC 28]. · Who else cites this
Zainaba K. v. Union of India and othersRelied on¶146
Zainaba K. v. Union of India and others [ILR 2000 (1) Ker.207], · Who else cites this
Suraiya v. Commissioner and Secretary to GovernmentDistinguished¶152
Suraiya v. Commissioner and Secretary to Government [1995 Cri.LJ 4088] · Who else cites this
Manju Ramesh Nahar v. Union of IndiaDistinguished¶157
Manju Ramesh Nahar v. Union of India [(1999) 4 SCC 116], · Who else cites this
K.T.M.S. Abdul Cader and others v. Union of IndiaRelied on¶166
K.T.M.S. Abdul Cader and others v. Union of India [AIR 1977 Madras 386], · Who else cites this
Kartarey v. State of Uttar PradeshRelied on¶170
Kartarey v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(1976) 1 SCC 172] · Who else cites this
Syed Farooq Mohammad v Union of IndiaRelied on¶176
Syed Farooq Mohammad v Union of India [(1990) 3 SCC 537] · Who else cites this
Ankit Ashok Jalan v. Union of IndiaApplied¶190
Ankit Ashok Jalan v. Union of India [(2020) 16 SCC 127] · Who else cites this
Radhakrishnan Prabhakaran v. State of Tamil Nadu and othersRelied on¶193
Radhakrishnan Prabhakaran v. State of Tamil Nadu and others [(2000) 9 SCC 170]. · Who else cites this
J. Abdul Hakeem v. State of Tamil NaduRelied on¶197
J. Abdul Hakeem v. State of Tamil Nadu [(2005) 7 SCC 70] · Who else cites this
Raishad K.T. v. Union of India and othersFollowed¶201
Raishad K.T. v. Union of India and others [ILR 2021 (4) Ker. 158] · Who else cites this
Kirti Kumar Chamanlal Kundaliya v. Union of IndiaRelied on¶202
Kirti Kumar Chamanlal Kundaliya v. Union of India [(1981) 2 SCC 436] · Who else cites this
Kamaleshkumar Ishwardas Patel v. Union of IndiaRelied on¶213
Kamaleshkumar Ishwardas Patel v. Union of India [(1995) 4 SCC 51] · Who else cites this
K.M. Abdulla Kunhi and B.L. Abdul Khader v. Union of IndiaApplied¶217
K.M. Abdulla Kunhi and B.L. Abdul Khader v. Union of India [(1991) 1 SCC 476] · Who else cites this
Sarabjeet Singh Mokha v. The District Magistrate, JabalpurDistinguished¶228
Sarabjeet Singh Mokha v. The District Magistrate, Jabalpur [2021 (13) SCALE 250].
Mohinuddin v. District Magistrate, BeedReferred¶247
Mohinuddin v. District Magistrate, Beed [(1987) 4 SCC 58] · Who else cites this
Jasbir Singh v. Governor, Delhi and othersApplied¶249
Jasbir Singh v. Governor, Delhi and others [(1999) 4 SCC 228] · Who else cites this
Rajammal v. State of Tamil NaduApplied¶255
Rajammal v. State of Tamil Nadu [(1999) 1 SCC 417] · Who else cites this
Fitrat Raza Khan v. State of U.P.Relied on¶262
Fitrat Raza Khan v. State of U.P. [(1982) 2 SCC 449] · Who else cites this
Abdul Salam v. Union of IndiaRelied on¶267
Abdul Salam v. Union of India [(1990) 3 SCC 15] · Who else cites this
8 provisions across 3 enactments
MUHAMMED FAISAL
UNION OF INDIA
JOINT SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
DIRECTOR GENERAL, CENTRAL BOARD OF ECONOMIC INTELLIGENCE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
THE JOINT DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE, COCHIN ZONAL UNIT
THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, POOJAPPURA
ANIL K.NARENDRAN
P.G. AJITHKUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
