PRABHUDAS DEVJI GHUTLA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order of detention dated 1/12/2007 passed under Section 3(1)(ii) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short the Act), by the Principal Secretary (Appeals and Security), Government of Maharashtra, Home Department and Detaining Authority, is under challenge in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. The said order was served on the detenue -Harnish Prabhudas Ghutla @ Kanha (the petitioner's son) on 5/1/2008 at Veraval, Taluka Junagadh in the State of Gujarat along with the statement of reasons and other connected documents and was detained in the Mumbai Central Jail, Arthur Road on 6/1/2008 and continues to be in detention as of now. The period of detention is one year from the date of detention i.e. from 5/1/2008.

(2.) Though a number of grounds have been raised against the impugned order of detention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has confined her arguments only to the following grounds:

(3.) Mrs. Ansari, the learned counsel for the petitioner, also submitted that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, as stated in the order of detention, and in the statement of reasons annexed thereto, is at variance in as much as in para 27 of the statement of reasons the detention is claimed to be under Section 3(1)(i), whereas in the order of detention it is shown to be under Section 3(1)(ii) of the Act. We have perused the statements of the detenue recorded under Section 108 of the Act on more than one occasions and there is no doubt that the impugned order has been passed under Section 3(1)(ii) of the Act i.e. for preventing the detenue from abetting the smuggling of goods. Mrs. Ansari also stated that though the order of detention was passed on 1/12/2007, it was served only on 5/1/2008 and on this ground also the casual and leisurely attitude of the authorities is writ large to indicate that there was no justification to pass the impugned order. We are not impressed by these submissions. From the record it is clear that when the detenue was taken in detention he had given his address of Mumbai and, therefore, at the first stage the order of detention was sought to be served at the said address. He was not traceable and then the authorities went through the record once again and noted his permanent address in Gujarat and got in touch with the Veraval Police Station. On 3/1/2008 the Veraval Police Station informed about the availability of the detenue and, therefore, the officers went to the said police station and served the detention order on the detenue. This explanation deserves to be accepted.