MOHAMMAD DIN ALIAS MANNO Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been brought under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the detention order dated March 7, 1988, passed by respondent No. 2 under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as "COFEPOSA Act") and declaration dated April 5, 1988, made under Section 9(1) of COFEPOSA Act by respondent No. 3. The impugned orders have been made with a view to prevent the detenu from engaging in transporting smuggled goods and abetting the smuggling of goods in the sensitive border area of Punjab.

(2.) The petitioner is stated to be Pakistani national and has been engaged in smuggling for the last about 25 years in association with some of the local persons. The detention orders were stated to have been passed against the petitioner and other co-detenus including one Vinod Kumar.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has, at the outset, urged that in spite of demand being made the authorities failed to supply copies of the search authorisations for conducting searches at house No. 9362, Gali No. 8, Multani Dhanda, Paharganj, house No. 211, Second Floor, Chuna Mandi, Paharganj and the residential premises of co-detenu Raghubir Prasad Sharma situated at Hanuman Gali, Hathras, District Aligarh. It is pleaded that panchnamas regarding the searches carried out at the said premises were relied upon by the detaining authority while passing the detention order and copies of the said panchnamas were supplied to the petitioner-detenu pari passu the grounds of detention and these panchnamas referred to the search authorisation warrants copies of which were not supplied pari passu the grounds of detention. He has urged that the petitioner made a representation to the detaining authority requesting for supply of copies of the search authorisation warrants alongwith copies of some other documents but for reasons known best to the detaining authority the copies of the said documents were not supplied and thus the detenu has been prevented from making an effective and purposeful representation against the order of detention.