ANIL SANAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the order of the Joint Secretary to the Govt. of India dated 29th July, 1991 passed under Section 3(1) of Conservation of Foreign Exchange & Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. The petitioner was arrested by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence on 17th July, 1991 when the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence intercepted two white Maruti Cars bearing No. DL-3C-B-3050 and DL-4C- 1957 in front of Cargo Complex, near IGI Airport, New Delhi. On search of Car No. DL-3C-B-3050 gold bearing foreign marking was recovered. The said car was driven by one Shri Rathnesh Sahai and the petitioner was sitting in the said car. It is alleged that the gold was given to the petitioner by one Shri Issac Samuel, Duty Manager of Ambassador Flight Catering Operation and he had in turn to hand over the said gold to Shri Rajinder Singh and Shri Harbhajan Singh. It is alleged that this gold was brought by a passenger Gurdeep Singh from Hongkong who travelled by Air France Flight No. AF-183 on 16th July, 1991. This flight was catered by Ambassador Catering Services and Shri Issac Samuel is employer of Ambassador Catering Services. The petitioner was produced before the A.C.M.M., Delhi on 17th July, 1991 and remanded to judicial custody. The petitioner made a representation to the respondent on 14th August, 1991, Annexure-D to the petition. The petitioner sought certain documents from the respondent in order that he could make a representation to the respondent for revocation of the detention order. The petitioner also by the same representation asked for revocation of the detention order dated 29th July, 1991. The respondent rejected the representation no 21st September, 1991.

(2.) It is submitted by the learned Counsel for petitioner that because of non supply of the documents asked for by the petitioner the petitioner was unable to make effective representation as contemplated under Article 22(5) of the Constitution. It is further submilted that there was unexplained delay in disposing of the representation. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on the D.B. judgment of this Court reported in Govind Ram v. Union of India & 3 Others, 1985 (1) Crimes 777, and submitted that if the detenu asks for certain documents they must be given to him in order that he is able to make effective representation. Learned Counsel submitted that failure to give the documents results in denial of the right to make an effective representation guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the representation was made by the petitioner on 14th August, 1991. However, the respondent did not' dispose of the same till 21st September, 1991. Thus, the respondent took over one month to dispose of the representation. 89

(3.) The learned Counsel for the respondent, however, submitted that the respondent was not required to give the documents like the flight manifest to the petitioner because these documents were not relied on by the detaining authority while making the detention order.