DEBABRATE DAS Vs. JOINT SECY GOVT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Most of the facts relevant for the purpose of deciding the present petition are not in dispute. The detenu is the Managing Director of M/s. Sea Transportation Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. having its head office at Nariman Point, Bombay. The officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Bombay received a secret/reliable information that the petitioner is maintaining a secret account in London and Germany and a part of the commission earned by him is being credited in his accounts abroad. It also came to their knowledge that the petitioner has brought huge amount of foreign currency for selling the same in the local market. On the basis of the said information the residential as well as office premises of the petitioner were raided on 22-8-1985 and a number of documents and the foreign currency was taken into possession by means of four panchnamas. On the next day he was produced before the Magistrate and was released on bail on his furnishing a bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- which was subsequently confirmed. The statement of the detenu was recorded on 23rd Aug., 1985 and subsequently on 3/4 occasions. However, the department took sufficient time to arrive at a conclusion as to whether he be detained or not. Ultimately on 18-11-1985 the order of detention under S.3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act 1974 (as amended) was passed but he was actually arrested and detained on 4-12-1985. Later on the matter was placed before the Advisory Board and the order of detention was confirmed.

(2.) The petitioner has now moved the present petition for the release of the detenu on the following amongst other grounds:- (a) that the documents recovered during the search of the residential/office premises of the detenu vide four panchnamas were not placed for the consideration of the detaining authority nor their copies were supplied to the detenu to enable him to make purposeful and effective representation against his purported detention order. The non-placing and non-consideration of the seized documents by the detaining authority will render the order of detention bad in law; (b) that the alleged confessional statement of the detenu was retracted subsequently by him vide letter dated 28-10-1985 and this fact was also withheld by the department. This letter of retraction was the most vital, necessary, important and relevent document which, if placed before the detaining authority, would have influenced their mind one way or the other; (c) that the correspondence exchanged between the petitioner and the enforcement Directorate and other officials of Finance Ministry were not placed before the detaining authority. The said correspondence fully explains that the remittance, if any, of the foreign exchange totalling over Rs.69 lakhs was done through the normal Banking channels. This fact would also explain the circumstances under which a sum of 27,560 dollars was found in his possession at the time of his search.

(3.) The respondent department has filed the counter-affidavit. Even though their stand is that the documents taken into possession and the correspondence exchanged between him and the enforcement directorate authorities are not material, and for that reason they were not placed before the detaining authority as the order of detention, was passed on the basis of seizure of 27,560 dollars. It is also alleged that the letter dated 28-10-1985 was received from the Headquarters on 25-11-1985 but as in the meantime the order of detention had already been passed on 18-11-1985 it was thought fit not to bring it to the notice of the detaining authority.