Preventive detention under FERA upheld despite challenges to recorded statements, alleged factual errors, and Article 22(5) compliance.

A preventive detention challenge under FERA was rejected on three grounds: the Court found that reliance on statements recorded by the concerned Enforcement officer did not vitiate the detention, the alleged factual misstatements and non-production of original account books did not show non-application of mind, and no infringement of Article 22(5) was accepted on the asserted failure to consider the detenu's representation. The detention was therefore upheld and the petitions were dismissed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the detention order was vitiated because the detaining authority relied on statements recorded by an officer said not to be a gazetted officer of Enforcement under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973; (ii) whether alleged factual misstatements and non-production of the original account books showed non-application of mind; and (iii) whether there was infringement of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India for failure to consider the detenu's representation.

Issue (i): whether the detention order was vitiated because the detaining authority relied on statements recorded by an officer said not to be a gazetted officer of Enforcement under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973.

Analysis: The challenge questioned the factual and legal basis of the detention on the footing that the statements relied upon were not validly recorded under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 and that the detention could not be sustained by reference to alternative doctrines or assumptions.

Conclusion: The challenge failed and the detention was not held invalid on this ground.

Issue (ii): whether alleged factual misstatements and non-production of the original account books showed non-application of mind.

Analysis: The petition assailed the grounds of detention as containing self-evident factual errors and contended that the absence of the original account books deprived the detaining authority of a proper basis for forming satisfaction.

Conclusion: The challenge was rejected and no vitiation of the detention order was found on this ground.

Issue (iii): whether there was infringement of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India for failure to consider the detenu's representation.

Analysis: The petition alleged that the representation sent on behalf of the detenu had not been duly considered and that this omission rendered the continued detention illegal.

Conclusion: The contention was negatived and no constitutional infirmity was accepted on this ground.

Final Conclusion: The detention was upheld in substance and the petitions were finally rejected.

---