DHIRAJ SINGH MADAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The detention of a person already incustody amounts to double detention. similarly, non supply of material documents and delay in disposal of the representation under Article 22(5) of the constitution renders the detention illegal and void.

(2.) The allegations against Dhiraj Singh Madan, petitioner, are that on 11.4.91, on account of his personal search US 5000 dollars were recovered from his possession. As a result of search of his vehicle certain other incriminting loose sheets were recovered. He was accordingly detained. He was served with a detention order dated 13.5.91, issued under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange end Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as COFEPOSA Act). Reasons assigned for detention are "to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the augmentation of foreign exchange". The petitioner was detained and kept in custody in Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi. With this detention order, petitioner is stated to have been supplied the documents and grounds of detention.

(3.) After receipt of the detention order, petitioner made a representation, dated 30.5.91, to the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Deptt. of Revenue. In this representation, the petitioner asked for documents. This representation was rejected on 20th June, 1991 without assigning any reason. In this representation, the petitioner had asserted that the Hindi translation of order of detention and grounds of detention were not the true translation of the original order of detention and the ground of detention, therefore, amounted to non-supply of material documents. It was also asserted that the copy of the proposal sent by the sponsoring authority to the detaining authority, which was a document referred to and relied upon by' the detaining authority had also not been supplied to him. He asserted that the said documents be supplied to him in order to enable him to file an effective and purposeful representation. He also called upon the detaining authority to supply him the contents of the information parri-passu the grounds of detention beside asking certain other documents.