BEEVIKUNJU K.A. Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The wife of a detenu and the father of another detenu is before us challenging the detention under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act , 1974 [for brevity " COFEPOSA Act "]. The wife had unsuccessfully challenged her husband-Faisal's earlier detention, on similar allegations, which stood confirmed in W.P(Crl.) No.351 of 2017. Faisal, undeterred, has been again indulging in smuggling activities, asserts the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence ['DRI' for brevity] and the Union of India, respectively the detaining and affirming authority under the COFEPOSA Act . The other detenu, Adnan Khalid, is an operative of Faisal, who was caught at the Airport, though not red- handed, allegedly passing on the contraband, to a Customs official. The parties have various contentions, which are almost similar in nature. We refer to the detenu by their names and the official respondents as detaining authority and the Union of India, in the judgment.

(2.) We have heard Sri.M.Ajay on behalf of Faisal and Sri.P.A.Augustian on behalf of Adnan Khalid. Central Government Counsel Sri.S.Manu argues for the detaining authority and Sri.Jaishankar V.Nair, CGC for the Union of India and the 2nd respondent.

(3.) Sri.M.Ajay specifically put forth his grounds of challenge with reference to the memorandum. It is argued that there is clear failure to supply documents that were relied on in the detention order produced at Exhibit P2 in his writ petition and also those further documents essential for a proper consideration by the Advisory Board, as sought for in Exhibit P13. Exhibit P13 has been rejected curtly and without any grace, mistaking it as a representation, while it was a request for supply of documents. Stress is laid on non-supply of CCTV footage, which is the crucial link establishing the seizure of the contraband at the Airport, which gave rise to the summoning of Faisal and other persons and resulted in their preventive detention. It is urged that the CCTV footage ought to have been supplied and facilities provided to view it. Curiously, mere printouts which were undecipherable, were supplied along with the documents. The printouts of the footage purportedly showing Adnan Khalid and the officer of the Customs, who is alleged to have stealthily obtained the contraband from Adnan Khalid and hid it in his body, was a completely dark photo copy.