Detention order upheld under COFEPOSA Act despite challenges. Detaining Authority's decision found valid.

Shri. Rashid Kapadia. Versus Medha Gadgil, The State of Maharashtra & The Superintendent of Customs

Shri. Rashid Kapadia. Versus Medha Gadgil, The State of Maharashtra & The Superintendent of Customs - TMI Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the detention order under COFEPOSA Act.
2. Non-consideration of retractions by the Detaining Authority.
3. Non-placement of bail applications before the Detaining Authority.
4. Non-supply of co-accused statements and other relevant documents to the detenu.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Detention Order under COFEPOSA Act:
The petition challenges the detention order dated 20.07.2011 issued under Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act by the Principal Secretary (Appeals & Security), Government of Maharashtra. The detenu was implicated in a case involving the misdeclaration of goods for export, intending to claim higher drawback fraudulently. The Detaining Authority concluded that there was a deep-rooted conspiracy and passed the detention order to prevent the detenu from engaging in future smuggling activities.

2. Non-consideration of Retractions by the Detaining Authority:
The petitioner argued that the retractions made by the detenu and his cousin Sayed Naimuddin were not placed before the Detaining Authority, which would have influenced the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority. The retractions were sent to the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Uran, but were neither served on the Revenue officers nor their advocate. The court found that the retractions were not brought to the notice of the Sponsoring Authority or the Detaining Authority, rendering the contention vague and unsupported by specific particulars.

3. Non-placement of Bail Applications before the Detaining Authority:
The petitioner contended that the bail applications filed by the detenu and Sayed Naimuddin were not placed before the Detaining Authority. The court held that the failure to supply bail applications did not prejudice the detenu's ability to make a representation, as he was fully aware of their contents. The Detaining Authority did not refer to or rely upon the bail applications, and the bail orders were duly served on the detenu.

4. Non-supply of Co-accused Statements and Other Relevant Documents to the Detenu:
The petitioner argued that the statements of co-accused Ashok Dhakane, Bala Jadhav, and Sanjay Waghmare were not supplied to the detenu, depriving him of the right to make an effective representation. The court found that the Detaining Authority did not refer to or rely upon these statements while passing the detention order. The court emphasized that the failure to supply documents casually or passingly referred to in the grounds of detention does not render the detention illegal if they did not influence the Detaining Authority's subjective satisfaction.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition, holding that the detention order was valid and the Detaining Authority's subjective satisfaction was not impaired by the non-consideration of retractions, non-placement of bail applications, or non-supply of co-accused statements. The court found no merit in the petitioner's contentions and discharged the rule.