PARASMAIJAIN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner. Parasmal Jain @ Shanti Lal Jain, detained pursuant to an order of detention, passed on 18th of July 1988 by Shri K.L. Verma, Joint Secretary to the Government of India, by virtue of powers, conferred under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, (for short 'the Act'), challenges his detention by means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing the aforesaid order of detention, and directing his release.

(2.) The petitioner was placed under detention, on 29th July, 1988, in execution of the aforesaid detention order, passed as a sequel to recovery of Rs. 11 lakhs on 24th March 1988, from a room in Pamba Tourist Home, Ernakulam which was allegedly in possession of the petitioner.

(3.) The challenge to the detention is made on a number of grounds, such as retraction of his confessional statement not having been brought to the notice of the detaining authority as also his explanation in respect to the recovery of sum of Rs. 11,00,000.00 in Indian currency seized from his residence, and further that his request for being allowed assistance of a lawyer having not been considered, thus depriving him of a right of effective representation. The contention further is that the representations made by him to the detaining authority firstly on 2nd September, 1988 and thereafter on 28th September, 1988 were not considered with the requisite promptitude, and that there was long drawn delay in disposal thereof and further that in spite of specific request having been made by means of his representation dated 28th September, 1988 for supply of copies of summons issued to S/Shri Bhandari, Manobar Lal and Joseph ; the same were not supplied. It is alleged that there is reliance or reference to the aforesaid summons, by the detaining authority, while passing the detention order. The plea is that in view of the inordinate delay already committed, inasmuch as this petition was filed on 4th November, 1988 by which lime the aforesaid documents demanded by the petitioner had not been delivered to him; his right had been prejudicially affected, inasmuch as even the representation made by him had been rejected, and supply of the documents hereinafter would be meaningless. There are other grounds such as some of the copies of the documents supplied being not legible as also the order being vitiated, having been passed after long lapse of time from the date of the alleged recovery, and that some of the documents supplied to him were in English language which was neither known to him nor understandable to him.