SAINABA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the wife of Ahammedkutty, COFEPOSA detenu No. 1386. Ahmmedkutty has been detained under S.3(1)(i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, hereinafter referred to as "the COFEPOSA Act."

(2.) Facts which led to his detention are as follows : On 7-12-1994, the Customs Intelligence Officer attached to Air Customs, Calicut Airport detained a passenger by name Mujeeb Rahman, who was waiting for security check for travelling to Sharjah. On examining his body, foreign currency of various denominations, including U.S. Dollars, Oman Riyals, Saudi Riyals; Kuwaiti Dinars, U.A.E. Derhams, Qatar Riyals and Bahrain Dinars, valued at 1.2 crores of Indian Rupees were recovered from him. Mujeeb Rahman gave a statement under S.108 of the Customs Act. According to him, one Saide of Kacheripady had arranged for a Visa for him to proceed to Sharjah on condition that he should carry foreign currencies. Sri. Mujeeb Rahman was arrested and subsequently released on bail. The Customs authorities questioned various people including the detenu. When he was questioned under S.108 of the Customs Act on 21-1-1995, he stated that at the instance of Saide he voluntered to smuggle foreign currencies out of Indian for remuneration of Rs. 10,000/- and air-tickets. After staying at Dubai for about a week, he returned on 3.-8-1994. After further investigation into the facts stated by the detenu, Customs authorities placed the records before the detaining authority for issuing order of detention under the COFEPOSA Act. On 15-5-1995, Exhibit PI order of detention was issued under S.3(1)(i) of the COFEPOSSA Act. In execution of that order, detenu was taken into custody on 2-6-1995. Grounds of detention and connected documents were served on the detenu on 3-6-1995. He did not make any representation against the detention. Detaining authority referred the case relating to the detenu to the Advisory Board on 29-6-1995. On 2-8-1995, Advisory Board gave its opinion justifying the detention. On the basis of that opinion, Exhibit P3 order of confirmation under S.8(f) of the COFEPOSSA Act was issued on 10-8-1985. On 23-8-1995, detenu filed representations to all authorities. By Ext. P5 order dated 29-8-1995, the detaining authority rejected the representation. The Central Government, by Exhibit P6 order dated 21-9-1995, followed the same. Hence this Original Petition.

(3.) Learned counsel representing (he petitioner, wife of the detenu, raised three points for our consideration - (1) There was inordinate delay in issuing Ext. P1 order of detention. On account of the delay, the nexus between the act of smuggling and the object sought to be achieved by detention has been snapped; (2) Central Government did not dispose of the representation within a reasonable time and it has vitiated the order of detention; and (3) relevant documents were suppressed, by the sponsoring authority, from the detaining authority and consequently the detention is vitiated. We shall proceed to deal with these submissions in seriatim.