G BALAJI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respective petitioners, who were detained under Section 3 (1) (i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (Central Act 52 of 1974), by the impugned detention orders dated 30. 12. 2005 and 31. 01. 2006, challenge the same in these Petitions.

(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the respondents.

(3.) FOR the sake of convenience, first we will decide the case in HCP. No. 53 of 2006. At the foremost-learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the detaining authority failed to record its opinion, before accepting the inculpatory statement, on the rejection of retraction letter. Elaborating the above contention learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the detenu had sent his retraction letter to the Sponsoring authority (DRI) on 26. 12. 2005 and the same was rejected by the sponsoring authority on 28. 12. 2005, and hence, the detaining authority who passed the detention order on 30. 12. 2005, ought to have independently applied his mind on the retraction letter while arriving at subjective satisfaction and recorded his opinion in the grounds of detention. It is also brought to our notice that the Government, on the basis of the materials placed concluded that the averments / contentions contained in the representation are baseless and de void of merit and rejected the same, whereas the grounds of detention at page 6, paragraphs (xi) and (xii) do not disclose the rejection of representation and hence, the detention order is vitiated.