SURINDER KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition filed by the petitioner-detenu for quashing the order of detention dated 2-9-1993 passed by the respondent under Sec. 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the "COFEPOSA Act") passed by the Joint Secretary of respondent No. 1.

(2.) Ms. Sangita Nanchahal, learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that the irrelevant material was considered by the detaining authority and consideration of irrelevant material by the detaining authority shows non-application of mind by the respondent. She has argued that as per their own averments the respondent has considered certain documents such as application dated 5-5-1993 for grant of 'B' class jail and Court's Order thereon filed by John Anthony Zmak, co-accused of the petitioner, application dated 5-5-93 for medical examination and reports and statement of Harsh Talwar of M/s York. International dated 1-6-1993. On the basis of these materials learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that ail these letters would show that they were not at all relevant for passing the detention order and detaining authority while taking into consideration all such documents has acted in a mechanical manner thereby not applying its mind and on this ground alone the order of detention be quashed. In support of her arguments she has cited Vishwanath alias Pappu v. Union of India, 1993 (1) Crime 223 : (1993 Cri LJ 1560), Gurdas Seal v. Union of India, 1994 (2) Apex Decisions 21 and Criminal Writ 207/89 * titled as Jagdish Mitr v. UOI decided by P. K. Bahri J. the case of Smt. Shalini Soni v. Union of India, (1980) 4 SCC 544 : (1980 Cri LJ 1487) in which the Supreme Court laid down the law on this aspect :- * Reported in 1990 Cri LJ 269 (Delhi)

(3.) On the basis of these authorities learned counsel for the detenu has argued that in the present case also the order of detention is vitiated on account of irrelevant material being relied upon by the detaining authority for arriving at the subjective satisfaction for passing the detention order which shows, in fact, non-application of mind.