NAZIA BANU Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the wife of the detenu, challenges the detention order, passed by the first respondent, detaining her husband, namely, Kader ibrahim Sikkander under section 3 (1) (i) of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act,1974 (in short "cofeposa Act") in g. O. No. SR. I/543-4/2005, dated 17-06-2005.

(2.) HEARD Mr. B. Kumar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. A. Kandasamy, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondents 1 and 3, and Mr. P. Kumaresan, Additional Central Government Standing Counsel for second respondent.

(3.) THOUGH several contentions have been raised questioning the order of detention, at the foremost, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner projected that though the Detaining Authority heavily relied on the contents of declaration form, more particularly, the details of goods said to have been noted on the backside of the said declaration form were not supplied to the detenu along with the grounds of detention. According to him, inasmuch as those details have been relied on by the Detaining Authority in more than one place, in the absence of supply of the same within the prescribed time, the detenu was prevented from making effective representation, which violates the Constitutional mandate of Article 22 (5 ).