1978 (12) TMI 182 - SC - FEMA

Detention orders - Held that - Appeal dismissed. If the detenu wanted any more particulars such as the name of the intelligence officer or other information he could have well asked for the particulars before making his representation. That he never did. It was not as if any privilege had been claimed by the Government in respect of the intelligence reports. In fact we find that the intelligence reports were produced before the learned Judges of the High Court at the hearing of the Writ Petition there. There was no complaint before us that the detenu or his Counsel wanted to peruse the reports and were denied the opportunity of doing so. We do not think that the detenu could be said to have been denied a reasonable opportunity of making a representation merely because particulars which he neyer desired in respect of a ground which was not vague were not furnished to him. We are unable to see any force in any of the submissions advanced on behalf of the detenu.

Summary

Issues:
- Rejection of application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by the High Court of Madras
- Grounds for detention under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974
- Delay in execution of the detention order
- Validity of detention grounds based on resiled statements and intelligence reports
- Arguments regarding lapsing of detention order and lack of probative material
- Consideration of recalcitrant conduct of the detenu in delay explanation
- Necessity of disclosure of author and basis of intelligence reports for representation

Analysis:
The appellant, whose Writ of Habeas Corpus application was rejected by the High Court of Madras, filed an appeal and a Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. The impugned detention order, issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu in 1974, was executed after the appellant surrendered in 1978. The detention was based on two grounds involving smuggling activities and currency seizures. The appellant's counsel argued that the detention order lapsed due to the delay in execution and contended that the grounds lacked probative material, especially regarding resiled statements and intelligence reports.

The detaining authority justified the delay in execution by citing the appellant's absconding status and proclaimed him as absconding under the Criminal Procedure Code. The purpose of detention under COFEPOSA was deemed preventive, not punitive, to combat organized smuggling and preserve foreign exchange. The court emphasized the need for a live link between detention grounds and the prevention of smuggling activities. Despite the delay, the court rejected the argument that the detention order lapsed due to the delay, attributing it to the detenu's evasive conduct.

Regarding the validity of detention grounds, the appellant's counsel raised concerns about resiled statements and intelligence reports. The court found that the detaining authority had considered the resiled statements and adjudication proceedings, rejecting the argument that vital material was not presented. Additionally, the court addressed the issue of disclosure of intelligence report details for effective representation. The detenu's right to essential particulars forming the detention grounds was upheld, but it was noted that the detenu did not request additional particulars despite the specificity of the grounds.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the appeal and the writ petition, upholding the detention order and rejecting the arguments raised by the detenu's counsel. The court emphasized the detenu's entitlement to essential particulars for representation but found no merit in the submissions challenging the detention grounds and the delay in execution.