2000 (8) TMI 964 - SC - Companies Law

Whether sponsoring authority was right in placing the confessional statements of the said two co-accused, which were documents in their detention proceedings and, if placed, whether non placing of the retraction made by the said two accused which inherently co-relates the confessional statement, before the detaining authority, affects the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority? Held that - The impugned detention order dated 23-12-1999, suffers from patent illegality and, thus, cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the same is quashed and petitioner is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith unless wanted in connection with some other case Coming back to the present case we find really it is a case of one composite ground. The different numbers of the ground of detention are only paragraphs narrating the facts with the details of the document which is being relied but factually, the detention order is based on one ground, which is revealed by ground 1(xvi) of the ground of detention which we have already quoted hereinbefore. Thus, on the facts of this case section 5A has no application in the present case.

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the detention order under COFEPOSA.
2. Non-placement of retraction statements before the detaining authority.
3. Subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority.
4. Application of Section 5A of COFEPOSA regarding severability of grounds.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Detention Order under COFEPOSA:
The petitioner challenged the detention order dated 23-12-1999 issued under Section 3(1)(i) and (ii) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA). The primary ground for the challenge was the suppression of vital documents by the sponsoring authority from the detaining authority. The Customs Officers had intercepted two passengers and recovered foreign currencies and traveler's cheques. The petitioner was implicated based on statements from another individual, Saravanan, who described the petitioner's involvement in smuggling activities.

2. Non-placement of Retraction Statements Before the Detaining Authority:
The petitioner argued that the sponsoring authority failed to place the retraction statements of the co-accused, N. Prabhakaran and Mohd. Ibrahim Abbas, before the detaining authority, which was a vital document that could have influenced the decision. The detaining authority had relied on the confessional statements of these co-accused, but their retractions, which claimed the confessions were involuntary, were not presented. The additional affidavit confirmed that the retractions were not placed before the detaining authority, as it was assumed that the authority was already aware of them.

3. Subjective Satisfaction of the Detaining Authority:
The court emphasized that all relevant documents must be placed before the detaining authority to form a subjective satisfaction. The non-placement of retraction statements was significant as it could affect the detaining authority's decision. The court referenced previous judgments, including State of U.P. v. Kamal Kishore Saini and M. Ahamedkutty v. Union of India, which underscored the importance of considering all relevant materials, including retractions, to ensure the validity of the detention order. The court concluded that the non-placement of the retractions impaired the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, rendering the detention order invalid.

4. Application of Section 5A of COFEPOSA Regarding Severability of Grounds:
The State argued that under Section 5A of COFEPOSA, the detention order should remain valid even if one of the grounds is invalid, as the order is deemed to be made separately on each ground. However, the court found that the detention order in this case was based on a single composite ground, not multiple grounds. The court referenced Prakash Chandra Mehta v. Commissioner and Secretary, Government of Kerala, and Madan Lal Anand v. Union of India, which dealt with severability under Section 5A. The court concluded that Section 5A was not applicable in this case, as the detention order was based on one composite ground.

Conclusion:
The court held that the detention order dated 23-12-1999 suffered from patent illegality due to the non-placement of the retraction statements before the detaining authority, which affected the subjective satisfaction required for the detention. Consequently, the detention order was quashed, and the petitioner was ordered to be released unless wanted in connection with another case. The writ petition was allowed with no costs.

← Previous Next →