1985 (1) TMI 61 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Release of detenus under Conservation Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 based on alleged smuggling activities.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Detention Orders and Grounds:
The judgment concerns four petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed for the release of four detenus detained under the Conservation Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. The detentions were based on a common background involving a smuggling transaction related to a mechanised boat named "Al-Anwar." The detaining authority passed orders of detention against the detenus on 29-6-1984.

2. Legal Contention and Decision:
The detenus had earlier filed writ petitions in the High Court asserting their innocence and requesting to appear before Customs Officers with their advocate. The detaining authority did not receive copies of these writ petitions where the detenus vehemently denied involvement in the alleged smuggling activities. The court found that the failure to provide these crucial documents vitiated the detention orders as the detaining authority did not consider the detenus' earlier assertions of innocence made under oath.

3. Argument and Rejection:
The learned advocate for the respondents argued that the High Court's order served the purpose of the writ petitions and subsequent similar stands taken by detenus nullified the earlier assertions. However, the court rejected this argument, emphasizing the importance of the detenus' initial assertions and the impact of withholding such critical documents from the detaining authority.

4. Withdrawal of Writ Petitions:
Another argument raised was that the withdrawal of writ petitions removed them from consideration. The court disagreed, stating that while the petitions were withdrawn, the assertions made in them remained relevant and vital documents that should have been provided to the detaining authority.

5. Quashing of Detention Orders:
Ultimately, the court quashed the detention orders in each petition, citing the failure to furnish copies of the detenus' earlier writ petitions as a crucial factor. Consequently, the detenus were ordered to be released immediately.

6. Conclusion:
The judgment allowed the petitions by quashing the detention orders and directed the immediate release of the detenus. The rule was made absolute with no order as to costs.