TAPAN SAHA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeks quashing of the order F.No.873/4/ 92-CUS.VIII dated 6th January,1992 passed under Section 3 (1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activies Act (COFEPOSA Act for short) by the second respondent i.e. Joint Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi against the petitioner and setting him at liberty.

(2.) The brief facts are that the petitioner detenu was arrested on 3.11.91 at the Calcutta Airport when he arrived from Agartala by Indian Airlines flight No.1C-742. On the basis of suspicion his person was searched and 8 pieces of gold biscuits collectively weighing 932.8 grams valued Rs.4,41,680.00 approximately were recovered from his person. His statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act was recorded which of course is alleged to be extracted from him by force. Thereafter he was produced betore the trial court on 4.11.91 in respect of the offences under Sections 132 and 135 of the Customs Act with which we are not concerned in the present petition.

(3.) The detention order has been challenged on a number of grounds but during the course of arguments the learned counsel has confined his arguments to only one ground which is taken up in para 4 of the additional grounds. That ground is that the Central Govt. had failed to confirm the detention order within a period of three months from the date of his detention i.e. 6.1.92. This date is mentioned hecause it was on that date the order of detention was allegedly served on the petitioner while he was in custody in connection with the offences under the Customs Act. Therefore, the argument is that the order of detention having been passed beyond the statutory period of three months from the date of detention, the same was illegal and void and was liable to be quashed. In this respect my attention has been drawn to the case of Nirimal Vs. UOI and others reported in AIR 1978 SC 1155. In that case the order of confirmation of detention was iiol passed by the appropriate Govt. within a period of three months from the comincncement of detention. It was held that if no order of confirmation was made under clause (1) of Scction 8 of COFEPOSA Act. within three months by the Appropriale Govt. futher detention of the delenu will he without the authority of law. In the present case also the order of detenlion was confirmed on 23.4.92. that is, after expiry of three months from 6.1.92. Therefore, the order of detention.is had on the lace of it.