M K ABDULLA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Questioning legality of the order of detention passed in respect of Kunnath Pathukutty (hereinafter referred to as 'detenu'), her husband has filed this Habeas Corpus application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short "Constitution"). Detenu has been detained in Thiruvananthapuram jail pursuant to order of detention dated 7-4-1999 passed in purported exercise of powers under Section 3(1)(i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (in short 'the Act'). Said order was passed with a view to prevent detenu from smuggling goods.

(2.) Grounds of detention, inter alia, show that detenu was involved in smuggling activities on a large scale. She was intercepted on her arrival from Sharjah at Calicut Airport and subsequent search of her person conducted by a lady officer resulted in recovery of 24 gold biscuits concealed inside pouches of a knicker worn by her. Certain other activities were referred to, which according to detaining authority, is sufficient to show potentiality of her indulging in similar activities. It was, inter alia, stated in grounds of detention that she was arrested on 15-2-1999 and produced before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences) Court, Ernakulam (in short 'ACJM') on 16-2-1999 and was remanded to judicial custody till 2-3-1999. Though, it was mentioned that order of remand was extended, the period was left blank in the order of detention, and read as follows : "xxx. Later your remand was extended up to. . . . . . . . . . . ."

(3.) Only point urged in support of application was that though initially ACJM had refused bail, subsequently bail was granted by Sessions Judge, Ernakulam on 19-3-1999. Subsequently, conditions imposed by him were modified by this Court. Bail application and orders passed by different Courts were not supplied to detenu. This, according to petitioner, constituted violation of the protection afforded by Article 22(5) of Constitution which mandates grant of reasonable opportunity to make a representation. It also shows non-application of mind to relevant aspects. It is stated that detaining authority has not referred to these documents which are of vital importance and, therefore, order of detention is vitiated. In any event, these documents, if available, should have been supplied.