SEBINA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition for the issue of a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner is the wife of one Mohammed Ismail who is now detained under the provisions of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the 'COFEPOSA Act').

(2.) The detenu arrived at Thiruvananthapuram Airport on 25-5-1992 from Doha. He was arrested on 26-5-1992 by the Customs officers. He was granted bail on 6-6-1992 by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Ernakulam. On 4-9-l992, the detention order, Ext. P1, was issued under S. 3(1)(i) of the COFEPOSA Act. The order was executed on 18-9-1992 and the detenu was arrested under the COFEPOSA Act. On 19-9-1992, the grounds of detention were furnished to the detenu and he submitted' Ext. P3 representation dated 12-10-1992 to the State of Kerala and to the Union of India (respondents 1 and 2). On 15-10-1992, Ext. P4 order was issued by the Union of India rejecting Ext. P3 representation and on 26-10-1992, the State Government rejected Ext. P3 representation. On 20-10-1992, the case of the detenu was referred to the Advisory Board. The Advisory Board submitted its report to the Government on 3-12-1992 and thereafter, on 11-12-1992, Ext:P6 confirmation order was issued under S. 8(b) of the COFEPOSA Act by the State Government. Thereafter, the detenu submitted another representation, Ext. P7, on 18-1-1993 and the State Government and the Union Government rejected the same respectively as per Ext. P8 (dated 27-1-l993) and Ext.P9 (dated 29-1-1993). It is at that stage that the detenu's wife has filed this writ petition.

(3.) The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that even though in Ext. P3 representation dated 12-10-l992 the detenu stated that he was practically illiterate and did not know English and requested in para 4(h) that he may be 'allowed to be assisted by a literate person who is conversant with the legal formalities and who is able to understand the contents of various documents connected with the case, so as to enable him to properly represent him before the Advisory Board', and even though a copy of Ext. P3 was placed before the Board, the latter did not pay any attention to the said request and that, therefore, the petitioner's fundamental right under Art. 22 read with S. 8 of the COFE POSA Act have been violated and that, therefore, the detention is vitiated.