1995 (1) TMI 414 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the detention order under COFEPOSA Act.
2. Computation of the five-day period for serving grounds of detention.
3. Non-transmission of representations to the Central Government.
4. Alleged discrepancy in the documents provided to the detenu.
5. Consideration of irrelevant and extraneous documents by the detaining authority.
6. Alleged delay in the disposal of the representation by the Central Government.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Detention Order Under COFEPOSA Act:
The petitioner challenged the detention order under the COFEPOSA Act. The court noted that the petitioner, along with his brother, was intercepted at the airport with unauthorized foreign currency. The petitioner was detained, and the grounds of detention were served within the statutory period. The court found that the detention order was passed in accordance with the provisions of the COFEPOSA Act and upheld its legality.

2. Computation of the Five-Day Period for Serving Grounds of Detention:
The petitioner argued that the grounds of detention were served on the sixth day, thus violating Section 3(3) of the COFEPOSA Act. The court clarified that the computation of the five-day period should exclude the day of detention. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Haru Das Gupta vs. The State of West Bengal, the court held that the grounds of detention were served within the prescribed period, as the day of detention (March 25, 1994) was excluded, making the service on March 30, 1994, timely.

3. Non-Transmission of Representations to the Central Government:
The petitioner contended that his representations to the Advisory Board were not forwarded to the Central Government, infringing Article 22(5) of the Constitution and Section 11 of the COFEPOSA Act. The court noted that the representations were addressed only to the Advisory Board and not to the Central Government. It held that there was no duty on the State Government to transmit these representations to the Central Government unless expressly requested by the detenu. The court cited Smt. Gracy vs. State of Kerala and other relevant cases to support its conclusion.

4. Alleged Discrepancy in the Documents Provided to the Detenu:
The petitioner claimed that the index of documents provided in Punjabi did not match the English version, making it impossible to verify the documents. The court found this submission unconvincing, noting that the petitioner failed to point out any specific discrepancies. The court held that the translation of the index was accurate and that the petitioner had not been prejudiced.

5. Consideration of Irrelevant and Extraneous Documents by the Detaining Authority:
The petitioner argued that the detaining authority considered irrelevant documents, specifically two applications filed before the ACMM, New Delhi. The court examined these documents and concluded that they contained relevant information about the petitioner's arrest and parole in connection with the customs case. Thus, the court rejected the contention that the detaining authority considered extraneous material.

6. Alleged Delay in the Disposal of the Representation by the Central Government:
The petitioner alleged that there was an inordinate delay in disposing of his representation by the Central Government. The court emphasized the importance of expeditious handling of representations under Article 22(5) of the Constitution. It examined the timeline provided in the counter-affidavit and found that the Central Government acted promptly. However, the court noted a delay by the sponsoring authority in sending comments and directed it to file an explanation within five days.

Conclusion:
The court upheld the legality of the detention order, found the computation of the five-day period for serving grounds of detention to be correct, and dismissed the petitioner's claims regarding non-transmission of representations, document discrepancies, and consideration of irrelevant material. The court directed the sponsoring authority to explain the delay in sending comments on the petitioner's representation. The matter was listed for further consideration on February 10, 1995.