SACHINDRANATH AUDYA ALIAS SACHI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the validity of the detention order dated 26/11/1987 passed by Shri K.L. Verma, Joint Secretary to the Government of India under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. The order was passed with a view to preventing the detenu from dealing in smuggled goods otherwise than by engaging in transporting or concealing or keeping smuggled goods.

(2.) The detention itself is based on an incident dated 17/9/1987 when on an information the customs officers of Divisional Preventive Unit, Barasat Customs Division, Calcutta intercepted the detenu and one more person and recovered three foreign marked gold biscuits valued at Rs. 1,06,385.00 . This recovery was made pursuant to a secret information and the detenu on being given an opportunity to show the legal possession of the recovered gold failed to show any evidence in support of the same.

(3.) The detention order is assailed on a number of grounds. But there is hardly any need for me to go into the merits or otherwise of all the grounds as this detention, in my view, will have to be vacated for one important reason of delay in the communication of the order regarding the <PG>38</PG> consideration of the representation of the detenu. The detenu has raised a specific plea that there has been unexplained delay in the consideration of the representation. The law on the subject has been clearly laid down in Harish Pahwa v. State of U.P., AIR 1981 Supreme Court page 1126. The Supreme Court in this case has clearly stated that there are two facets to the consideration of the representation of the detenu ; one of them being that the representation of the detenu must be considered at the earliest possible opportunity and must be continuously considered until a final decision is taken thereon, and the other facet of this as laid down by the Supreme Court is that the result thereof must immediately be communicated to the detenu. This in short is the ratio of the law laid down in the case of Harish Pahwa, (supra).