PRADIP MULCHAND MIRPURI Vs. M R DESHPANDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order of detention dated 3rd October, 1979, passed against him by the second respondent State.

(2.) The petitioner was initially arrested on 16th February, 1979 for an offence under the Customs Act on the allegation that he had given 146 wrist watches and 120 watch straps together valued at Rs. 90,930/- to one passenger by name Shyamdas Bhagwandas Budhrani at Hongkong Airport and that the said Budhrani was arrested at Bombay airport on 28th January, 1979 carrying the said contraband goods, and that the petitioner had also accompanied the said Budhrani from Hongkong by the very same flight. The petitioner was produced in Court on 16th February, 1979, and was released on bail in the first week of March 1979. While the petitioner was still on bail pending the conclusion of the trial for the criminal offence for which he was arrested, on 3rd October, 1979 the impugned order of detention was passed against him under section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act. 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act.) The said order was executed against him on the 6th October, 1979, and he was supplied with the grounds of detention on that day. By his letter dated the 16th November, 1979, addressed to the Collector of Customs, the petitioner requested for the documents which were referred to in the grounds of detention and in particular the statements of the persons referred to therein on the basis of which the detention order had come to be passed. Thereafter by his letter dated 23rd November, 1979, addressed to the State Government, he renewed the said request and also made a reference to his letter dated 16th November, 1979 addressed to the Collector of Customs on the subject. Having not been obliged with the reply to either of his communications, he sent yet another letter to the State Government on the 4th December, 1979 reminding the Government of his earlier letter and renewing his demand for the documents called for therein. It may be mentioned that in all these three communications he had made it clear that in the absence of the documents requested for by him, it was not possible for him to make an effective representation to the grounds of detention and the explanation which he had given in the letters dated 23rd November, 1979 and 4th December, 1979 was on the basis of whatever material he had, and, therefore, was incomplete and that he looked forward to make a complete representation only after the receipt of the documents requested for by him. The State Government by its letter dated 6th December, 1979, replied to the letter of 23rd November, 1979 addressed by the petitioner, and stated that the request of the petitioner for supply of copies of the statements and documents relating the detention and also the request for his release from detention could not be granted.

(3.) In identical language, by its letter dated 18th December, 1979, the State Government replied to the second representation made in that behalf by the petitioner on the 4th December, 1979.