NASEEM IMRAN MOHAMMAD SIDDIK Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition, the petitioner-wife of one Imran Mohammed Siddik @ Samad Abdul Kassam Chapra (hereinafter referred to as the detenu), has challenged the order passed by Shri G. S. Sandhu, Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department (Preventive Detention) Detaining Authority dated 16-9-1997 passed in exercise of powers under section 3 (1) of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (hereinafter referred to as COFEPOSA Act) whereby the abovenamed detenu was ordered to be placed under detention.

(2.) ALTHOUGH three grounds were pressed at the time of arguments, we would rest our judgment only on one ground, which, in our view, is good enough to quash and set aside the impugned detention order. The impugned detention order has been assailed before us mainly on the following three grounds viz. , (i) that there is enormous and unexplained delay in execution of the detention order which has inevitably affected the genuineness of the detention order; (ii) that the detention order suffers from the vice of non application of mind inasmuch as the residential address of the detenu mentioned in the impugned order is incorrect and contrary to the address furnished by the detenu in his statement recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act. In this context it is submitted that in the detenus statement dated 1-3-1997 he had clarified that the address mentioned in his passport as "shrangila Apartment, 10th floor, flat No. 102, Sasoon Dock Colaba 400 005" was not his real address, but his real address was "50/52, Kambekar Street, 2nd floor, Hussaini Trust Building, Mumbai 400 003". It was thus submitted that notwithstanding this unambiguous statement of the detenu, the Detaining Authority has recorded the incorrect address in the impugned order of detention which itself indicates that the Detaining Authority did not carefully examine the records particularly the said statement pertaining to the detenus correct address ; (iii) It was lastly contended that there is delay in passing the detention order inasmuch as the incidents on the basis of which the Detaining Authority thought it appropriate to detain the detenu related back to the period around February and March 1997 whereas the impugned order of detention was passed only on 16-9-1997. In other words, it was contended that there was unexplained delay of about 6 ? months from the alleged seizure and in fact after period, for more than 6 months from the date when detenu was released on bail on 11-3-1997 and after a period of 4 months from the issuance of the show cause notice dated 20-5-1997.

(3.) AS mentioned above we think that the present petition should succeed on the first ground pressed before us and therefore we do not think it necessary to burden our judgment with the other two contentions raised before us.