FARAZ Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by the brother of the detenu praying for his release on several grounds including that the safe-guards provided by the Constitution have not been complied with. The facts are not in dispute. The detention order under Sec. 3 of the Confiscation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (for Short COFEPOSA) Act No. 52 of 1974 against detenu, namely, Mohammod Bhai alias Mohammod Mian S/o Nazir Bhai R/o Khoda Limda, Panwarbas, Palanpur (Gujarat) was passed by the State Government of Rajasthan on August 22, 1991. The detenu was arrested under the said order on March 8, 1996 and the ground of detention and documents on the basis of which the order of detention was passed, were supplied to him on the same day i.e. 8.3.96. On 3.4.96 the detenu made a representation to the Government which was not disposed of till the filing of the present writ petition on 30.4.96.

(2.) The detention order is being challenged on several grounds. One of the grounds is that the documents, containing in 112 pages which were supplied to the detenu, had no connection whatsoever with the grounds of detention served on him. Till the date of filing the writ petition on 30.4.96, the detenu was not supplied with copies of the documents which are said to be basis for passing the detention order. In the writ petition, a specific ground (M) has been taken that copies of documents relied upon by the Detaining Authority were not supplied to the detenu. In the reply dated 19.7.96 filed on behalf of the respondents, the above fact is not disputed and it has been averred that the detenu was supplied all the documents relied upon on 7.5.96. Subsequently, on behalf of the State of Rajasthan a separate reply was filed by Shri S. R. Yadav on 26.7.96 and in this reply also, it has been stated that the documents have been supplied to the detenu on 9.5.96. So, the undisputed facts are that the detenu was put under detention on 8.3.96 and on the same day, he was served with a detention order with the grounds of detention, but the documents on the basis of which the detention order was passed, were not supplied to him and correct documents were supplied to him on 7.5.96 or 9.5.96 as pleaded by the respondents. We are, therefore, of the opinion that without going into other grounds, this ground alone is sufficient to allow this petition.

(3.) In Kamla Kanhaiyalal Khushlani vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr., 1981 AIR(SC) 814, it was held by the Apex Court that the documents and materials relied upon in the order of detention form an integral part of the grounds and must be supplied to the detenu pari passu the grounds of detention. If the documents and materials are supplied later, then the detenu is deprived of an opportunity of making an effective representation against the order of detention.