TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1980 (9) TMI 272
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gal remittances made by certain persons through M/s. Thomas Cook (Overseas) Ltd., and some recoveries of purported incriminating documents were seized. The detenu was arrested on the same day and remanded to judicial custody. He was released later on bail on the condition that he should attend the Office of the Directorate of Enforcement daily. On his applications this condition was progressively relaxed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. 3. On September 5, 1979, the detenu was arrested in pursuance of a detention order dated August 31, 1979 issued by Shri B. B. Gujral, Additional Secretary, in the Ministry of Finance (Revenue), Government of India. The grounds of detention under Section 3 of the COFEPOSA were also supplied to him on th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Enforcement again made an offer that the detenu could inspect the documents. In reply, the detenu through his Advocate addressed a communication on October 2, 1979 that it was not possible to take inspection of the documents and that without the copies of the necessary documents it was not possible to prepare the detenu's representation. In this letter, he further informed that the detenu was willing to deposit any advance charges for preparing the copies. 6. By letter, dated October 15, 1979, the detenu was informed that his representation, dated September 24, 1979, had been considered by the detaining authority and rejected. In the meantime, the Advisory Board held its meeting and the detenu received a letter on November 3, 1979, info....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ontention is that the detenu's representations addressed to the Central Government for revoking the detention under Section 11 of the COFEPOSA were not considered by that Government but were illegally rejected by the detaining authority. 11. In the supplementary counter-affidavit filed by Shri N. I. Ramanathan, Under Secretary, Ministry of Finance on behalf of the Union of India, it is admitted that a letter from Shri Wazifdar, Advocate of the detenu was received in the Office of the Deputy Director of Enforcement for supply of copies of documents and that in reply, the Advocate was told to take inspection of the documents. It is stated that the Advocate did not appear on September 24, 1979 in the Office of the Enforcement Directorate for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d inordinate delay in the supply of the copies of the material documents to the detenu. He had made the request for supply of copies of those materials, by a letter from jail on September 8,1979. All the copies were not supplied till October 12, 1979. It is regrettable that the letter dated September 8, 1979 of the detenu for copies took 11 days to travel from the jail to the detaining authority in the Ministry of Finance, New Delhi. Surely some functionary of the Government in some office was grossly negligent in conveying or transmitting this letter to the detaining authority. Although the Advocate of the detenu as a matter of additional precaution to eliminate office delays, again directly wrote on September 15,1979 a letter to the Offic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rdinate and unreasonable, had vitiated the continuance of his detention. It was on this short ground, we had by our Order dated May 7, 1980 allowed this writ petition and ordered the release of the detenu. 15. In Writ Petition 528 of 1980, the detenu, Harish Vrajlal Thakker, was arrested on Sept. 5, 1979 in pursuance of a detention order passed under Section 3 of the COFEPOSA on August 31, 1979 by Shri B. B. Gujral Additional Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi, and the grounds of detention were also served on the detenu on the same date on which he was detained. On September 10, 1979 the detenu's counsel wrote a letter to the detaining authority through the Superintendent, Central Prison, Bombay, for suppl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y-dallied in supplying the copies. Another communication was received by the counsel for the detenu, that he could take inspection of the documents instead of the copies. The Advocate wrote to the Office of the Directorate of Enforcement that inspection was not an adequate substitute for the supply of the documents. He repeated his request for urgent supply of the copies. Thereafter on October 4, 1979 some of the copies were supplied to the detenu in jail, no copies of statements of Chema and Vikram, for which he had requested, were supplied to him. The detenu complained about the non-supply of those statements, but he was asked to sign the receipt without any objection. On October 25, 1979, the detenu received a communication dated October....