P P KOYAKUTTY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged his detention which has taken place on 2nd of May 1988 pursuant to a detention order passed on 10th of December 1987 under section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Sumuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short COFEPOSA Act) by the Government of Kerala with a view to preventing the detenu from abetting the smuggling of gold, engaging in transporting or concealing or keeping smuggled gold, and dealing in smuggled gold otherwise than by engaging in transporting or concealing or keeping smuggled gold.

(2.) This followed an incident dated 27th of May 1987 when one T.K. Andru who came to the customs for clearing a steel trunk which was said to be carrying household article was found to contain 165 gold biscuits, two gold bangles and one gold bracelet. Mr. TK Andru made a statement wherein he revealed that this gold belonged to one Hussain which was to be delivered to the detenu whom he also knows as Hussain. The petitioner was supposed to have documents in respect of this consignment which he was supposed to deliver to TK. Andru who after clearing the steel trunk from customs people was to hand over the same to the detenu. On 31st May 1988 a declaration under section 9(1) of the COFEPOSA Act was also issued in this case.

(3.) Now, the primary contention of Mr. Kochhar is that he made a representation to the detaining authority as also to the Central Government on 17th May 1988 and asked for 15 documents which were referred to in the grounds of detention. But the detaining authority failed to supply these documents to him and instead sent a communication to him in jail on 6th of June 1988 informing him that his representation was considered and was rejected. It would appear that the Central Government communicated the rejection of the representation to the detenu on 13th of June 1988 in which he was told that the documents will be supplied to him by the Collector of Customs, Cochin. The communication addressed to the detenu by the detaining authority rejecting his representation states nothing about the demand of the detenu. It is, therefore, doubtful whether the detaining authority had at all gone through the representation. In all probability, it seems to have been casually rejected without caring to know what it contains.