GIRISH PARASNATH MISRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is brought under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code seeking quashment of detention order dated July 11, 1988 passed under Section 3 (i) of the COFEPOSA Act and a declaration dated August 11, 1988 passed under Section 9 of the Act.

(2.) The facts in brief are that while the petitioner was on a flight coming from Dubai and was proceeding to Bombay, his seat was checked at Delhi Airport and golden biscuits of foreign origin weighing 2099.520 gms. were recovered. The aforesaid orders were passed with a view to prevent the petitioner from smuggling of gold in India. Various grounds have been taken in the writ petition challenging the impugned orders but it is not necessary to deal with all those grounds because the petition is liable to succeed on a very short point.

(3.) It was pleaded in Ground No.7 in the petition that a representation was made to the respondent in which a reference was made for a supply of some documents inter alia a copy of the search warrant issued in respect of search of residential premises of the petitioner. This document stands casually referred to in the Panchnama prepared in respect of the aforesaid search. A copy of the Panchnama was admittedly supplied along with the grounds of detention to the petitioner. It has been now settled by this Court in various judgments which have been quoted in my judgment in Uttam Chand and Budh Dev v. Union of India1 that the documents which are even casually referred to in the grounds of detention, the authorities are bound to supply the copies of the same if the request is made by the detenu to enable the detenu to make effective and purposeful representation against the detention order. The plea taken in the counter is that directions have been issued to the Collector of Customs at Bombay for supplying the copy of the search authorisation. It was also so mentioned in the letter dated October 24, 1988 by which the rejection of the representation was communicated to the detenu. Till today it is not shown that copy of the said search authorisation has been supplied to the detenu. It is also now settled that it is not for the Court to see whether a particular document which is casually referred to in the grounds of detention of which a copy is sought by the detenu would enable the detenu in fact in making any purposeful and effective representation. It is for the detenu to see whether a particular document of which he seeks a copy and document which is referred to even casually or incidentally in the grounds of detention would enable the detenu to make an effective representation. So non-supply of the copy of the search authorisation by the respondents had disabled the petitioner in the present case to make an effective and purposeful representation and thus the same vitiates the impugned orders.