2002 (8) TMI 113 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in passing the detention order.
2. Unexplained delay in serving the detention order.
3. Detention order issued while the petitioner was already in jail.
4. Non-consideration of relevant documents by the detaining authority.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Delay in Passing the Detention Order:
The petitioner argued that there was an undue delay in passing the detention order. The respondent explained that the proposal for detention was sent on April 27, 2001, and the screening committee met on May 16, 2001. The case was processed, and the show cause notice was issued on July 6, 2001, with the detention order being passed on July 12, 2001. The court found this timeline satisfactorily explained and did not consider the delay undue or unexplained. The court distinguished this case from others cited by the petitioner, where delays were significantly longer and remained unexplained.

2. Unexplained Delay in Serving the Detention Order:
The detention order dated July 12, 2001, was served on the petitioner on July 25, 2001. The petitioner contended that this delay was unjustified. However, the court found that the delay was satisfactorily explained and did not find any substance in the petitioner's contention. The court emphasized that the explanation provided by the respondent was satisfactory and did not warrant quashing the detention order.

3. Detention Order Issued While the Petitioner was Already in Jail:
The petitioner argued that since he was already in jail, there was no need for a detention order under the COFEPOSA Act. The court rejected this argument, noting that the detaining authority had considered the possibility of the petitioner being released on bail. The court cited the case of Noor Salman Makani, where the Supreme Court upheld a detention order under similar circumstances. The court also noted that the petitioner's co-accused had applied for bail multiple times, indicating a real possibility of the petitioner being released and resuming illegal activities.

4. Non-Consideration of Relevant Documents by the Detaining Authority:
The petitioner claimed that relevant documents, such as the cognizance order on the complaint and the sanction of the Collector of Customs, were not placed before the detaining authority. The court found this argument without merit, stating that these documents did not have a bearing on the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. The court distinguished this case from Ram Goyal, where pre-charge evidence was not placed before the detaining authority, noting that in the current case, the non-placing of the cognizance order and the sanction did not amount to suppression of material facts.

Conclusion:
The court found no infirmity in the detention order on any of the counts raised by the petitioner. The explanations provided for the delays were satisfactory, and the detaining authority had duly considered the relevant facts. The writ petition was dismissed, upholding the detention order.