M. V. MANI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been brought under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking quashment of the detention. order dated April 21, 1989 passed under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, (for short 'COFEPOSA Act') by respondent No. 2 with a view to preventing the petitioner from smuggling, abetting smuggling and engaging in transporting smuggled goods. This petitioner was detained by virtue of this order on May 24, 1989.

(2.) VARIOUS grounds have been urged in the main petition challenging the detention order but I need not refer to the said grounds as this petition is liable to succeed on a very short point which has been raised as additional ground in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 41/90 which has been allowed. The plea taken in this application is that a second representation on additional grounds dated November 30, 1939, was given to the Superintendent (Jail) but the same came to be forwarded by the Superintendent (Jail) to the detaining authority only on December 15, 1989 and the said representation came to be rejected on December 30, 1989. So, it is pleaded that there has taken place undue and unexplained delay of about 15 days in the representation remaining unattended at the level of the Superintendent (Jail) and thus, the continued detention of the petitioner has become void. Despite the fact that sufficient opportunity was provided to respondents 2 and 3 for filing counter-affidavit to the additional grounds urged in the application which was allowed on February 19, 1990, but no counter has been filed by respondents 2 and 3 till date. Even the record which has been brought by counsel for respondents 2 and 3 is not complete as the said second representation is not found in the said record. So, there is no plantation coming as to how and why delay of 15 days took place at the level of the Superintendent (jail) after the representation was given to him.

(3.) I allow the writ petition, make the rule absolute and quash the continued detention of the petitioner and direct that the petitioner be released from Jail, if not required to be detained in any other case. Petition allowed.