K VELU Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question referred before us is as follows:

(2.) THE said reference came to be made by Jayasimha Babu and S.R. Singharavelu, JJ., as the learned Judges were not in agreement with the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court reported in Rabiyathil Pathavia v. State Government of Tamil Nadu , 2001 (3) CTC 83 wherein, the Division Bench had quashed the detention of the detenu under Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (in short COFEPOSA) on the ground that after the detenu was lodged in detention, some documents came to be served on him without there being any "covering letter" along with it so that, because of the absence of the covering letter, the detenu was likely to be confused and that could have affected his right to make a proper repres entation.

(3.) ON this backdrop, when we see the judgment in Rabiyathil Pathavia case , cited supra, we find that the learned Judges have not given any finding regarding the nature of the documents served. It was specifically pleaded before the Division Bench in that case, that the documents supplied had nothing to do with the preventive detention and that these were the documents in respect of the proceedings between the Customs Department and the detenu with regard to the disposal of the seized goods under Sec.451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which was an independent action. It was also specifically contended therein that since the Court had directed the Customs Department to serve the notice on the detenu of the petition filed by the Department under Secs.110(1-A), 110(1-B) and 110(1-C) read with Sec.451 of the Crl.P.C., the said documents had been supplied. The only reason which the learned Judges have given is in the following words: