9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (8) TMI 206X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ises of the son, Indru, and seized two cameras and three wrist watches worth about ₹ 1.50 lakhs. 4. The detenus were arrested on November 23, 1979 and interrogated. During interrogation, the detenus claimed that the gems and other articles seized were not smuggled goods but were local materials, locally acquired. They also gave the names of four persons from whom these gems had been acquired. Both the father and the son were arrested and were produced before a magistrate. They were released on heavy bail subject to the condition that they would attend daily before the Customs Officers and cooperate in the investigation. This condition was later on relaxed. 5. On February 16, 1980, an order of detention, dated February 15, 1980, purporting to have been made under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short, called COFEPOSA) by the State Government was served on the detenus. This order was authenticated by the Under-Secretary to the State Government. The grounds of detention were also served on the detenus along with the order of detention on February 16, 1980. 6. On February 18, 1980, the wife of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion was not available to the detaining authority in the exercise of its jurisdiction under COFEPOSA. This shows that there was total non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. (3) The detenus made a written request to the detaining authority on February 18, 1980 for supply of the copies of the statements and documents relied upon in the grounds of detention, to enable them to make an effective representation. The detaining authority, however, callously and deliberately refused to supply the copies and conveyed rejection of this request by a letter, dated March 14, 1980, which, in fact, was received by the detenus on March 25, 1980. It was on the direction of the Central Government that the State Government supplied the copies of some of the statements to the detenus on April 3, 1980. The detenu had a constitutional right to be afforded a fair and full opportunity of making an effective representation against his detention. The refusal and the belated supply of these copies had violated that right of the detenu. Even now, copies of the earliest statements of the four persons, as is apparent from their statements, have not been supplied to the detenus. On ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r any other matter which is not referred to or relied upon in the grounds of detention. This, according to Shri Phadke, was one of the reasons that impelled the State Government to refuse the supply of the copies to the detenu. The second reason, according to the counsel was that the supply of the further information would have exposed the informants to bodily harm at the hands of the agents of the detenus, that the matter being still under investigation, the disclosure at that stage of the information would have adversely affected the investigation and harmed public interest. 14. Let us at the outset by very clear about the precise factual position. The request for copies was made by the detenus on February 18, 1980. After a delay of more than three weeks, this request was rejected by the State Government and that rejection was communicated to the detenu, by letter dated March 14, 1980. This letter was received by the detenu only on March 25, 1980. This delay in transit also, was unusual and inordinate. On March 27, 1980, the Central Government advised the State Government to supply the copies. Thereupon, it seems, that within three days the copies were put in a course of commu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terest. However, we have no objection for furnishing copies of the Panchnamas. In this affidavit, Shri Salvi has not stated that he had personally applied his mind to what the Collector had said in his letter, dated February 27, 1980, nor has he affirmed that he had intimated to the detenu that the copies had been refused in exercise of the discretion under Article 22(6) of the Constitution, on the ground that the disclosure of that information was, in the opinion of the government, not in the public interest. 16. It is well settled that the constitutional imperatives enacted in Article 22(5) of the Constitution are two-fold (i) the detaining authority must, as soon as may be, that is, as soon as practicable after the detention, communicate to the detenu the grounds on which the order has been made; and (ii) the detaining authority must afford the detenu the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the detention order. In the context, 'grounds' does not merely mean a recital or reproduction of a ground of satisfaction of the authority in the language of Section 3; nor is its connotation restricted to a bare statement of conclusion of fact. Nothing les ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made by the four persons, whose names, particulars and substance of their statements were mentioned in the grounds of detention. 18. As regards the first two categories of statements the substance of which was already in the knowledge of the deponents, no question of their disclosure being harmful to the public interest could arise. Nor could the supply of the full text of those statements, by any stretch of imagination, be said to be such that it might endanger the lives of the deponents. Regarding category (c), the substance of the statements of the persons mentioned in the grounds of detention had already been disclosed to the detenus. It was therefore, not reasonably possible to say that the disclosure of the full texts of their statements would endanger their safety or harm public interest. In the copies of the statements of those persons which were ultimately supplied to the detenus, after undue delay on the direction of the Central Government, there is a reference to the earlier statements of these four persons in which they had on the basis of some account books and documents, supported the contention of the detenus that the latter had acquired the gems in question from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
