9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2006 (10) TMI 385 - SC - CustomsWhether the documents were material so as to enable the detenue to make an effective representation ? Held that - It is a trite law that all documents which are not material are not necessary to be supplied. What is necessary to be supplied is the relevant and the material documents, but, thus, all relevant documents must be supplied so as to enable the detenue to make an effective representation which is his fundamental right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. Right to make an effective representation is also a statutory right. The detaining authority moreover while relying on the said documents in one part of the order of detention could not have stated in another part that he was not relying thereupon. The very fact that he had referred to the said statements in ex tenso is itself a pointer to the fact that he had relied upon the said documents. Even in the earlier part of the impugned order of detention, i.e. detaining authority appears to have drawn his own conclusions.In view of our findings aforementioned, it is not necessary to consider the contention raised by Mr. Mukul Rohtagi that order of detention suffers from non-application of mind. The judgment of the High Court, therefore, cannot be sustained. It is set aside accordingly and the order of detention passed against Appellant is quashed. The appeal is allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Unexplained delay in passing the order of detention. 2. Non-placement of material documents before the detaining authority. 3. Non-supply of documents relied on or referred to in the order of detention. 4. Non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Unexplained delay in passing the order of detention: The appellant was detained under Section 3 of COFEPOSA for allegedly misdeclaring the value and description of exported goods to avail DEPB incentives fraudulently. Despite the proposal for detention being made on 2.12.2004, the order was issued only on 5.4.2005. The Supreme Court noted that the delay was not sufficiently explained, particularly since the DRI had stated on 20.12.2004 that transactions after 11.10.2003 were not under scrutiny and had requested the bank to defreeze the appellant's accounts on 28.02.2005. The Court emphasized that unexplained delay could vitiate the order of detention, referencing multiple precedents, including Rajinder Arora v. Union of India and Others and T.D. Abdul Rahman v. State of Kerala and others. The Court observed that the delay in this case was not satisfactorily explained, and thus, the order of detention was questionable. 2. Non-placement of material documents before the detaining authority: The Court highlighted that several material documents were not placed before the detaining authority. These included: - A letter dated 5.7.2002 exonerating the appellant for earlier years. - A letter dated 20.12.2004 stating that transactions after 11.10.2003 were not under scrutiny. - Letters dated 28.2.2005 and 7.3.2005 defreezing the appellant's bank accounts. - Civil court orders from 7.5.2004, 31.5.2004, 13.8.2004, 31.8.2004, and 28.10.2004, directing the release of goods and documents. - A contempt notice issued on 18.11.2004 for non-release of documents. The Court noted that these documents were relevant and their non-placement before the detaining authority rendered the order of detention vitiated. 3. Non-supply of documents relied on or referred to in the order of detention: The Supreme Court found that the appellant and Prabhjot Singh's statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act were extensively referred to in the detention order but were not supplied to the appellant. The Court reiterated that non-supply of material documents impairs the detenue's right to make an effective representation, which is a constitutional right under Article 22(5) and a statutory right. The Court cited precedents such as Kamarunnissa v. Union of India and Another, emphasizing that all relevant and material documents must be supplied to the detenue. 4. Non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority: The Court observed that the detaining authority's order contained contradictions, where it referred to the appellant's and Prabhjot Singh's statements extensively but also claimed not to rely on them. This indicated non-application of mind. The Court concluded that due to the non-placement and non-supply of material documents, and the unexplained delay, the order of detention was vitiated, and thus, the judgment of the High Court could not be sustained. Conclusion: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and quashed the order of detention against the appellant, allowing the appeal with no costs.
|
