KASAM HUSAIN THAIM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department, by order dated March 24, 1988 passed in exercise of powers conferred under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'COFEPOSA'), directed detention of the petitioner with a view to preventing him from smuggling or abetting smuggling of goods. The order was served on the detenu on March 29, 1988 and the grounds of detention were furnished.

(2.) The grounds of detention supplied to the detenu make wonderful reading. It is difficult to appreciate whether the Detaining Authority understands what should be written while furnishing grounds of detention. We are not reciting the facts set out in the grounds of detention, because in our judgment the order of detention is required to be quashed for basic defaults.

(3.) Shri Karmali, learned counsel appearing for the detenu, pointed out that the order recites that the detention is necessary with a view to preventing the detenu from smuggling or abetting smuggling of goods. This shows total non-application of mind of the detaining authority and it is difficult for the detenu to make effective representation against such vague observation. Turning to the grounds of detention, after setting out that a country craft owned by the detenu was searched on January 25, 1987 and it was noticed that there were 16 crew members on the craft and 100 contraband gold bars were recovered, the detaining authority recites that some of the reasons for passing order of detention are as follows. We fail to appreciate how the detaining authority can set out only some of the reasons and thereby indicating that there are other reasons which the detaining authority had in mind but which are not set out in the grounds of detention. Reading the grounds of detention, it is clear that the detaining authority was writing a thesis and giving advice to the detenu and was not setting out the facts which were taken into consideration for arriving at subjective satisfaction. In our judgment, the order of detention suffers from serious infirmity and cannot be sustained.