DALJIT KAUR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Smt. Daljit Kaur has filed the present petition for a writ of habeas corpus, challenging the detention of her husband Sri Jagpal Singh Sahauli under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA Act, for short). The respondent No. 2, the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Deptt. of Revenue in the purported exercise of his power under Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act, passed an order on the 19th June, 1998 directing that the detenu Jagpal Singh Sahauli @ Gorkha be detained and kept in custody in Dum Dum Central Jail, Calcutta as he (the detaining authority) was satisfied that with a view to preventing the said Jagpal Singh from engaging in transporting, concealing and keeping smuggled goods in future, it was necessary to make the order of detention. It appears from the recitals in the statement of the grounds of detention that the Directorate ofRevenue Intelligence, Calcutta received information that one Sri Jagpal Singh Sahauli alias Gorkha has garages on Bombay and Delhi Road around Calcutta and he was also transporting goods of foreign origin viz. bearings contained in containers and cleared under CTD for transportation to Nepal via declared Indian Land Customs station which were first taken to one of his garages near Alampur and that the seals of the containers were broken at that place and the packages of the imported goods were removed from the containers and loaded in the trucks waiting in the garage compound and that those containers did not cross the Indian Borders at all and the imported goods, namely, bearings so removed from the sealed containers were transported to Delhi under the Cover of Indian goods like Jute caddies etc. where the goods were delivered to places as per instructions of one Sri Khushwant Singh alias Kanti Singh of Dashmesh Road Service whose head office was at 27/1, A, Eden Hospital Road, Calcutta 12 and that four trucks loaded with cases of ball bearings removed from container under the cover of Jute caddies etc. left Calcutta on 29th Oct. 1997 for Delhi side but one of those four trucks bearing a particular number had been seen parked for about 1-2 days on Delhi road near Jagadamba Petrol Pump. Acting on the said information the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Calcutta located the concerned truck, caught hold of the same, searched, recovered and seized ball bearings of foreign origin from the truck on 31-10-1997/1-11-1997. Follow up actions were taken thereafter and on the basis of further information further recovery and seigers of ball bearings of foreign origin were made on 15-11-1997 and 16-11-1997. The petitioner's involvement in the illegal activities were also unearthed. Various steps were taken in the process and statements of various persons were also recorded. Show cause notices were also issued on different dates, the last one being dated 4-5-1998. The detention order was passed on 19-6-1998 and it was served on the detenu on 27-7-1998 at Dum Dum Central Jail and the grounds of detention together with the relied upon documents were served upon him on 29-7-1998.

(2.) The petitioner has challenged the detention order on various grounds, such as, delay in passing the detention order, supply of illegible documents, non consideration of representation, etc. The plea taken by the petitioner that the live link had been snapped between the date of incident and the date of passing the order by reason of delay in passing the order however has been repelled by the respondents by stating that while passing the detention order all the developments and materials generated upto the 4th May, 1998 were taken into consideration and that it would be evident from the grounds of detention that the live link between the date of incident and the date of passing the order was maintained all along. On going through the grounds of detention and also considering the large volume of relied upon documents, it also appears to us that a lot of exercise had to be undertaken in collecting the necessary materials, and the complexities of relevant events, numerous in number, were also quite enormous. In the circumstances we are not prepared to hold that there was any undue delay in passing the impugned order of detention or that the live link had been snapped in the meantime. As regards the plea of supply of illegible documents also we do not find any substantial merit. As regards the plea of the petitioner that the detenu does not know English or has no working knowledge of English it is stated in the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondents that he knows English and this fact is clearly borne out from two facts, namely, that the agreement available at pages 409-412 of the documents relied upon is in English and signed by the detenu himself in English, and also that while acknowledging the receipt of detention order and the documents, the detenu has made enforcement in English. Therefore, we are not convicted that the detenu does not know English.

(3.) However the most difficult challenge to the continued detention of the detenu has been projected in the area of consideration of representation submitted against his detention. In paragraph 23 of the writ petition it is stated that the detenu made an incomplete representation addressed to the Secretary to the Government of India, the detaining authority and to the Advisory Board and that the detenu made another representation to the Central Government for revocation of his detention under Section 11 of the COFEPOSA Act and the said representation was forwarded by the petitioner to the Superintendent of the Central Jail on 8-9-1998 but the respondent No. 3 refused to accept the same onthe ground that the detenu had ben transferred to other jail and then the petitioner sent the representation by speed post and by registered post to the respondent No. 3 (Superintendent Dum Dum Central Jail). In paragraph 23 of the affidavit-in-opposition affirmed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the Union of India and the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue respectively it is stated that the undated representation of the detenu written in Gurmukhi language was received in the Ministry on 4-9-1998 and immediate action was taken to call for the comments as well as a translation of the representation in English language from the sponsoring authority, namely, Deputy Director DRI, Calcutta and a letter dated 7-9-1998 was issued to the sponsoring authority accordingly. It is further stated that the sponsoring authority submitted their comments as well as the translation of the representation in English on 14-9-1998 and the representation of the detenue was submitted to the under Secretary on 15-9-1998 who after processing the same submitted it to ADG on 18-9-1998 and the ADG in turn submitted the same to SS-cum-DG, CEIB on the same date and the Special Secretary-cum-DG, CEIB rejected the representation of the detenu on 21-9-1998 on behalf of the Central Government and a memo intimating the detenu about rejection of his representation was issued on 21-9-1998 itself, 19th and 20th Sept. being Saturday and Sunday (Holidays). It is further stated therein that simultaneously this representation of the detenu was also submitted to the detaining authority on 18-9-1998 who rejected the same on the same day and a memo intimating the detenu about rejection of his representation was also issued on 18-9-1998 and in view of the above it is evident that the representation of the detenu was considered independently and expeditiously both by the detaining authority as well as Central Government and there is no other representation made by the detenu received in the office of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2.