(1.) IN this case, the petitioner was detained under section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (in short, COFEPOSA) vide order, dated 6th September, 1994 (Annexure P1) passed by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue (COFEPOSA UNIT), New Delhi. The aforesaid order was served on the petitioner on 9th September, 1994 while he was in judicial custody. The aforesaid order has been challenged by the petitioner in this petition on the various grounds mentioned in Para 11 of the Petition.
(2.) NOTICE of this petition was issued to the respondents and the respondents have filed their written statement by way of affidavit of Shri K.L. Verma, Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue.
(3.) THE learned counsel further submitted that from the counter affidavit, filed on behalf of the respondents, it appears that the representation submitted by the petitioner to the Central Government was dealt with only after the receipt of the report from the Advisory Board and prior to the receipt of the report of the Advisory Board, the representation was not even placed before the Central Government. He, therefore, contended that the order of detention was liable to be quashed on this ground also. In support of this contention, he placed reliance on a judgment rendered by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Jaya Narayan Sukul v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1970 SC 675 and judgments in Moosa Hussein Sanghar v. State Of Gujarat and others, 1993 SC (Criminal) 340 : 1993(1) Recent CR 638 (SC) and Mavalshankar Ishwarlal Dave v. State of Gujarat, 1994 Criminal Law Journal 2170.