2007 (4) TMI 369 - SC - Companies Law

Supreme Court Upholds Detention Order in COFEPOSA Case, Emphasizes Right to Representation

The Supreme Court upheld the Bombay High Court's decision dismissing a Habeas Corpus Petition challenging a detention order under the COFEPOSA Act. The ... Detention orders - What is the impact of a discharge of the accused by the criminal court based on police reports on the validity of the detention order against the same person based on the same charge in the context of a contention of a non-application of the authority’s mind? Held that:- Appeal dismissed. No arguments were advanced before the High Court relating to these documents though they were a part of the record before the High Court. The first order of detention and the grounds of detention were served on 23-11-2005. The writ petition was filed on 2-12-2005 under article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 for setting aside the order of detention. In March, 2006, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 146 of 2006 was filed under article 32 of the Constitution for quashing and setting aside the order of detention during the pendency of Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 2930 of 2005 before the Bombay High Court. On 26-6-2006, this Court disposed of the petition under article 32 of the Constitution directing the High Court to dispose of the matter within a period of one month and that is how the impugned order dated 6-7-2006 was passed. Looked at from any angle the order of the High Court does not suffer from any infirmity and the appeal deserves dismissal which we direct. Issues:Challenge to judgment of Bombay High Court dismissing Habeas Corpus Petition under COFEPOSA Act; Exoneration in adjudication proceedings affecting detention order validity; Non-supply of relevant documents for effective representation; Retraction of confessional statement by detenu; Consideration of new grounds post-detention period.Analysis:The appeal challenged the Bombay High Court's judgment dismissing a Habeas Corpus Petition under the COFEPOSA Act. The appellant contested the detention of his brother, the detenu, based on two main grounds. Firstly, the appellant argued that since the detenu was fully exonerated in adjudication proceedings, there was no need for a detention order. Secondly, it was contended that the detaining authority should have considered the exoneration in the adjudication proceedings. The Enforcement Directorate's search of the detenu's residence under FERA led to the detention order, which was challenged based on the detenu's exoneration in the adjudication process. However, the High Court held that the exoneration in adjudication proceedings did not nullify the detention order, citing established legal principles.The appellant further argued that crucial documents were not provided to the detenu, hindering effective representation. Additionally, the retraction of the detenu's confessional statement raised doubts about the validity of the original confession used in the detention order. The respondent countered by stating that both the original statement and the retraction were considered by the detaining authority before issuing the detention order. The Supreme Court referenced previous cases to emphasize that discharge or acquittal in criminal proceedings does not always bar preventive detention, especially if based on security concerns.Regarding the consideration of new grounds post-detention period, the appellant urged the court to take into account new evidence, including the detenu's denial of being 'Dimple' in certain documents. While acknowledging that new grounds could be raised in some cases, the court noted that the factual background in this case did not warrant such consideration. The court highlighted the importance of supplying all relevant documents for effective representation, citing the detainee's fundamental and statutory right to make such representations. The court found that relevant documents were not raised as arguments before the High Court, and the appeal was dismissed due to the absence of any infirmity in the High Court's order.