AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (11) TMI 664
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... dated 20th July, 2011 bearing No. PSA-1211/CR-17(4)/SPL-3(A) issued by the Detaining Authority in exercise of powers under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"), upon recording satisfaction that it was essential to detain the detenu with a view to prevent him in future from smuggling of goods and abetting smuggling of goods and engaging in transporting and concealing and keeping smuggled goods and harbouring persons engaged in smugging of goods and abetting smuggling of goods. From the Grounds of Detention served on the said detenu, it is noticed that the said action was initiated against the said detenu, as he was involved along with four others in the case of gross misdeclaration with respect to quantity, quality and valuation of the declared export goods, besides claim of disproportionately higher amount of drawback. The Grounds of Detention refer to the statements of the accused recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, including the admission of the detenu that he had filed the wrong declaration on the shipping bills and had not obtained the permission of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... prevent him from indulging in smuggling activities in future as his smuggling activities were covered by Section 113(d) and (h) (ii) of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. The second petition is filed by the cousin brother of one Sanjay Nivrutti Waghmare (hereinafter referred to as "Detenu Waghmare") to challenge the Detention Order dated 20th July, 2011 bearing No. PSA-1211/CR-17(5)/SPL-3(A) issued by the Detaining Authority in exercise of powers under Section 3(1) of the said Act, upon being satisfied that detention of Detenu Waghmare was essential to prevent him in future from smuggling of goods and abetting smuggling and engaging in transporting and concealing and keeping smuggled goods and harbouring persons engaged in smugging of goods and abetting smuggling of goods. As aforesaid, the Detention Order against Detenu Waghmare has been passed in connection with the same transaction referred to in the Grounds of Detention of Detenu Jadhav regarding smuggling of goods of gross misdeclaration with respect to quality, quantity and valuation of the declared export goods and claim of disproportionately higher amount of drawback regarding the export consignment of M/s. Noble Impex under eig....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he impugned Detention Order is founded on the same transaction pertaining to export consignment of M/s. Noble Impex under eight shipping bills which came under scanner because of gross misdeclaration with respect to quantity, quality and valuation of the declared export goods and claim of disproportionately higher amount of drawback. After referring to the relevant admission given by the co-accused, it is noticed that Detenu Dhakne was partner of the concerned Clearing House Agency, i.e., M/s. Dhakne & Co. The Grounds of Detention stated that Detenu Dhakne abetted the improper exports and claiming drawback fraudulently by offering his C.H.A.services to the exporters. He was shown the sample of export goods. He instructed his staff to prepare the shipping bills and related documents for exports. He had given instructions to Detenu Jadhav to prepare, file the shipping bills and complete Customs dock formalities. He confirmed the name of Bala Jadhav on shipping bills of M/s. Noble Impex on behalf of C.H.A. Firm, M/s. Dhakne & Co. He admitted to have offered his C.H.A. service without verifying quality and quantity of the samples of the items to be exported. He has also admitted ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....S/o. Balwinder Singh v. the State of Maharashtra & Ors., Criminal Writ Petition No. 2188 of 2011 decided on 11th October, 2011. Incidentally, in that case also, the counsel for the petitioners herein had appeared for the detenu and unsuccessfully pursued these very grounds. She fairly accepts that the principle enunciated in the said decision in relation to the abovesaid grounds would squarely apply and it may not be possible for her to distinguish the same. 9. That leaves us with the other three broad common points urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners. According to the petitioners, the impugned Detention Orders suffer from the vice of non-application of mind. In that, the Detaining Authority, after receipt of the proposal, proceeded to pass order within one day. The argument proceeds that it was impossible for the Detaining Authority to wade through all the four proposals examined together in one day and also formulate grounds therefor. The second shade of challenge to the impugned Detention Order, as suffering from the vice of non-application of mind, is that, there is variance in the alleged activities stated by the Detaining Authority in the Order of Detention an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t to the Under Secretary who endorsed it on 30.6.2011 and forwarded it to Deputy Secretary. The Deputy Secretary endorsed it on 2.7.2011 and the proposal was submitted to me. I endorsed it on 11.7.2011 and directed to get the documents stamped. By its letter dtd. 11.7.2011 the Sponsoring Authority forwarded the copy of Show Cause Notice, dtd. 4.7.2011 which was submitted to me and on 12.7.2011 I as the Detaining Authority directed to include it in relied upon documents. Thereafter on 19.7.2011 the stamped relied upon documents were submitted to me. I as the Detaining Authority directed to issue the detention Order by drafting the Detention Order along with the grounds of detention and also directed to submit the fair copy of the same. Accordingly the fair copy of the Detention Order and the grounds of detention was submitted to me on 20.7.2011 and on the same day the detention order was issued against the detenu. I as the Detaining Authority, on the material facts available on record and after my subjective satisfaction with the documentary presentation as clearly stated in the grounds of detention, communicated to the detenu. I arrived at the decision that the detenu should be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2332 OF 2011 Cri.W.P. 2333 OF 2011 Cri.W.P. 2683 OF 2011 1. Checklist for Export 8984595 dtd 26-10-10 (with Declaration, Annex-A, Invoice Details, Item Details etc.) Checklist for Export 8984588 dtd 26-10-10 (with Declaration, Annex-A, Invoice Details, Item Details etc.) Checklist for Export 8984570 dtd 26-10-10 (with Declaration, Annex-A, Invoice Details, Item Details etc.) Checklist for Export 8984619 dtd 26-10-10 (with Declaration, Annex-A, Invoice Details, Item Details etc.) Checklist for Export 984577 dtd 26-10-10 (with Declaration, Annex-A, Invoice Details, Item Details etc.) Checklist for Export 8984546 dtd 26-10-10 (with Declaration, Annex-A, Invoice Details, Item Details etc.) Checklist for Export 8984811 dtd 26-10-10 (with Declaration, Annex-A, Invoice Details, Item Details etc.) Checklist for Export 8984796 dtd 26-10-10 (with Declaration, Annex-A, Invoice Details, Item Details etc.) Shipping Bill No. 8984595 dtd 26-10-10 (with Checklist, Invoice, Packing List) Shipping Bill No. 8984588 dtd 26-10-10 (with Checklist, Invoice, Packing List) Shipping Bill No. 8984570 dtd 26-10-10(with Checklist, Invoice, Packing List) Shipping Bill No. 8984619 dtd 26-10-10 (w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 9. Statement of PD dated 14.03.2011 Statement of Shri Ashutosh Rai dated 11-02-2011 Statement dated 16.11.10 of Shri Bala Baburao Jadhav PD No. 4 10. Statement of PD dated 21.02.2011 Statement of Shri Khalil A.R.A. Kapadia PD No. 2 dated 06-12-2010 Statement of PD dated 14.03.2011 11. Statement of PD dated 15.12.2010 Statement of Shri S.J. Naeemudidn PD No. 1 dated 01-12-2010 Statement of PD dated 01.03.2011 12. Statement of PD dated 16.11.2010 Statement of PD dated 07.02.2011 Statement of PD dated 10.02.2011 13. Photo index of all PDs Statement of PD dated 28.12.2010 Statement of PD dated 03.12.2010 14. Government Approved Valuer Report dated 30.11.2010 Photo index of all PDs Statement of PD dated 01.12.2010 15. Textile Committee Report dated 22-12-2010 Government Approved Valuer Report dated 30.11.2010 Statement of PD dated 19.11.2010 16. Seizure Memo dated 12.01.2011 Textile Committee Report dated 22-12-2010 Statement of PD dated 19.11.2010 17. Detention Panchnama dated 29.11.2010 Seizure Memo dated 12.01.2011 Photo index of all PDs 18. Order Bail (2 copies) Detenti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Partner. He prepared the offending shipping bills under instructions of Detenu Dhakne. As regards Detenu Waghmare, material would indicate that he went to Surat to solicit probable exporter and discuss the export strategy with customer, for which, he was to charge fixed amount of Rs. 10,000/- per container. The acts of commission and omission of Detenu Waghmare also attract only abetting the smuggling of goods, as he was not the exporter or manufacturer of goods himself. 15. We have already adverted to the activities referred to in the Grounds of Detention by the Detaining Authority as against each of the detenues. In the case of Detenu Jadhav, the allegation is that he prepared and signed the eight shipping bills and related documents for exports of M/s. Noble Impex and completed custom dock formalities without scrutinising the export documents. He submitted blank annexure / declaration to generate the checklist. He submitted overwritten / correct customs cleared documents at EDI Centre, Kalamboli, without proper permission of the Customs. He admitted misdeclaration in description, quantity, quality, valuation of the export goods and claiming drawback fraudulently by the e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion 113. In the present case, the act of commission and omission was in respect of the goods attempted to be exported or brought within the limits of Customs area for the purpose of being exported, and more particularly, goods entered for exportation under claim for drawback, which did not correspond, in any material particular, with the information furnished by the exporter or manufacturer under the Customs Act in relation to the fixation of rate of drawback under Section 75. It is true that none of the detenues are themselves exporters or manufacturers of goods entered for exportation. At best, they can be said to be facilitators or agents. However, as they were associated with the prejudicial activities in that capacity, they can, certainly, be made liable for abetting the activity of smuggling of goods within the meaning of Section 3(1)(ii) of the COFEPOSA. The allegation against them is also of not disclosing the identities of the persons involved in the smuggling, as they were actively involved in the prejudicial activities. Thus the detenues can be said to have indulged in harbouring persons engaged in smuggling goods or in abetting the smuggling of goods, within the mean....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., it was noticed from the grounds of detention that the Detaining Authority was satisfied that the detenu and his associates were found in possession of the smuggled gold, but the order of detention was issued for preventing the detenu in future from smuggling goods. In this background, the Public Prosecutor had contended that it was not necessary to specify the activity referred to in sub-section (1) in the order of detention. That contention has been rejected in paragraph 24 of the reported decision. In the present case, however, it is noticed that the order of detention refers to all the five activities specified in sub-section (1) of Section 3 of COFEPOSA, whereas, the grounds of detention refer to only activities ascribable to clauses (ii) and (v) of sub-section (1) of Section 3 i.e. of abetting the smuggling of goods or harbouring persons engaged in smuggled goods or in abetting the smuggling of goods respectively. 19. To get over this position, the respondents would contend that non-mention of other activities in the Grounds of Detention - for smuggling goods, engaging in transporting or concealing or keeping smuggled goods, dealing in smuggled goods otherwise than by eng....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nstitution, the communication to a person detained in pursuance of a detention order of the grounds on which the order has been made shall be made as soon as may be after the detention, but ordinarily not later than five days, and in exceptional circumstances and for reasons to be recorded in writing, not later than fifteen days, from the date of detention.' It is therefore apparent that S. 5-A relates to the grounds furnished to a detenu in support of the order of detention and it has no relevance to the Order of detention. We must therefore reject the submission made by Mr. Bhobe." (emphasis supplied) 21. Reliance is also placed on the unreported decision of the Division Bench in the case of Babulal Dhanji Makwana v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors., in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1051 of 2002 decided on 8th April, 2003. In that case, the Court found that, in the grounds of detention, the role of the detenu was, at best, one of carrier. However, he was detained for smuggling goods. In paragraph 13 of this decision, the Court has opined:- "13. We are also of the opinion that the detention order cannot be sustained on the ground that it was necessary to detain the det....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... if the Order of Detention, as in this case, were to refer to acts or omission constituting smuggling goods along with other specified activities in Section 3(1) of the said Act; but, in the Grounds of Detention furnished to the detenu, no reference is made to the activity of smuggling goods at all. Such order of detention would be bad as a whole, but then, it is saved on account of a legal fiction in Section 5A, if the other ground in support of the order of detention is relevant, definite and proximate. That is amply clear from the plain language of Section 5-A itself, which reads thus:- "5-A. Grounds of detention severable.--Where a person has been detained in pursuance of an order of detention under sub-section (1) of Section 3 which has been made on two or more grounds, such order of detention shall be deemed to have been made separately on each of such grounds and accordingly-- (a) such order shall not be deemed to be invalid or inoperative merely because one or some of the grounds is or are-- (i) vague, (ii) non-existent, (iii) not relevant, (iv) not connected or not proximately connected with such person, or (v) invalid for any other reason whatsoever, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....de separately on each of such grounds', while the second part says that such order shall not be deemed to be invalid or inoperative merely for the reason that one or some of the grounds are either vague, non-existent, irrelevant or unconnected. That the second part is merely a continuation of and consequential to the first part is evident from the connecting words 'and accordingly'. The second part goes further and says that the order of detention must be deemed to have been made on being satisfied with the remaining good ground or grounds, as the case may be. Both the parts are joined by the word 'and'." Again, in paragraph 49, the Court observed thus:- "49. Now, take a case, where three orders of detention are made against the same person under COFEPOSA. Each of the orders is based upon only one ground which is supplied to the detenu. It is found that the ground of detention in support of two of such orders is either vague or irrelevant. But the ground in support of the third order is relevant, definite and proximate. In such a case, while the first two orders would be quashed, the third order would stand. This is precisely what the first part (the main ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....order of detention." (emphasis supplied) 26. A priori, we have no hesitation in taking the view that in the facts of this case, the impugned Order of Detention will be saved by virtue of Section 5-A of the COFEPOSA at least in respect of activities referable to clauses (ii) and (v) of Section 3(1) of the act, which are present both in the Order of Detention as well as the Grounds of Detention. The said grounds in support of the order are relevant, definite and proximate. 27. Relying on the decision of the Karnataka High court in the case of Anwar Abdulla etc., v. The union of India & Ors., 1992 36 233211 Cri. L.J. 3616, it was then argued that merely approving the remarks noted by the subordinate officers, in particular the Sponsoring Authority, is a case of non-application of mind by the Detaining Authority or the Authority deciding the representation. In the first place, the opinion recorded by the Karnataka High Court is in the context of the fact situation of the case before it, wherein even the grounds were made ready by someone else than the Detaining Authority. Our attention was also invited to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Vashdev Adnani vs. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng the detenu from concealing, transporting smuggled goods as well as dealing in smuggled goods - activities prescribed in clauses (iii) and (iv) of Section 3(1). More or less, similar is the factual position found in the case of Prithvi Sovera Kuntal v. State of Maharashtra -2001 All MR (Cri) 1163. In that case, the detenu was sought to be detained to prevent him in future from abetting the smuggling of goods, whereas the grounds of detention mentioned reason as to prevent the detenu in future from smuggling of goods. Reliance was placed on another decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bannalal Vahilda Chavla vs. Union of India & Ors. Reported in (1999) 6 SCC 210. Once again, the Court interfered with the detention order on the finding that the satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority cannot be said to be reasonable and genuine. Having found that there was hardly any reason for the detenu to collude with the firm which 39 233211 was dishonestly selling blue-coloured kerosene to those not entitled to it and was thus indulging in black marketing of blue-coloured kerosene. In none of the above mentioned decisions, the question whether the order of detention was an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rocessed by the concerned officers. On 2nd September, 2011, the Under Secretary processed the file and made his endorsement. 4th September, 2011 was a holiday. The file was accordingly put up before the Deputy Secretary, who made his endorsement and signed it on 5th September, 2011. On the same day, the file was placed before the Additional Chief Secretary, being the Appropriate Authority of the State Government, who considered the representation and rejected the same. The representation was, however, considered by the Detaining Authority on 7th September, 2011 and came to be rejected. Both the Offices of the Detaining Authority and the Appropriate Authority of the State Government informed the detenu about the rejection of the representation by communication dated 7th September, 2011. 30. In the reply-affidavit filed on 13th September, 2011 by the Detaining Authority before this Court, for some inexplicable reason, it has been mentioned that the representation was undecided till then. This anomaly has been explained by the respondents by pointing out that the para-wise comments to the writ petition were forwarded by the Detaining Authority to the Office of the Public Prosecu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the State Government. The learned A.P.P. has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kamarunnissa vs. Union of India & Anr. reported in (1991) 1 SCC 128. Even in that case, the grievance of the detenu was that his continued detention had become illegal due to inordinate delay in consideration of his representation by the Authority. In Para 7 of the decision, after adverting to the relevant dates of movement of the file/representation, which is more or less similar to that in the present set of cases. The Court opined that it was obvious from the explanation that there was no delay on the part of the Detaining Authority in dealing with the representations of the detenu. The Court restated the legal position that whether or not the delay, if any, is properly explained would depend on the facts of each case. As noticed earlier, we are satisfied that there is no delay in consideration of representations by the authority concerned. 32. We may, however, notice that the office in Mantralaya, after receipt of the representation on 9th August, 2011, sent communication to the Sponsoring Authority, inviting its para-wise remarks on the representation by communic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ish Pahwa v. State of U.P. & Ors., AIR 1981 S.C. 1126. In that case, however, it was found that the delay of six days in consideration of representation by the Chief Minister was not acceptable. Reliance was also placed on another decision of the Apex Court in the case of Harshala Santosh Patil v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2006) 12 S.C.C. 211. In that case also, there was unjustified and avoidable delay of five days in consideration of the representation. 35. The counsel for the respondents has justly relied on the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Abdu Salam alias Thiyyan S/o. Thiyyan Mohammed v. Union of India & Ors., (1990) 3 SCC 15. In that case, the appellant made representation to the Detaining Authority on September 27, 1998, which was rejected by the State Government on October 1, 1998 and by the Central Government on November 2, 1998. The Court, after adverting to its earlier decisions, analysed the facts of that case, and observed that, from the explanation given by the Authority, it can be seen that the representation was considered almost expeditiously, and there is no "negligence, or callous inaction or avoidable red-tapism". 36. We have no manner of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the report of the Sponsoring Authority in the proposal that the detenu knew English Language. The Sponsoring Authority, in the reply-affidavit, however, merely stated that the plea taken by the petitioner that he had no workable knowledge of English Language is factually incorrect. The Sponsoring Authority also chose to rely on the affidavit of the Executing Authority. The Executing Authority, in turn, in its reply, has stated that the detenu was served with the Detention Order along with the Grounds of Detention and Compilation on 26th July, 2011. The detenu requested to hand over all the documents and compilation to his cousin brother, viz., the present petitioner, i.e., Vikram Vithal Borhade. Accordingly, the documents were handed over to the present petitioner. 40. The Sponsoring Authority, pursuant to the liberty given by this Court, in the further affidavit dated 20th October, 2011, has explained the stand taken by it in its earlier affidavit that the plea under consideration taken by the petitioner is factually incorrect. In the further affidavit filed by the Sponsoring Authority, it is stated that the office record of the Sponsoring Authority shows that the detenu ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nglish and initialled by him in English, were prepared by someone else. It is not possible to assume that fact sans any tangible explanation as to who had helped the detenu in drafting the same. Therefore, it is not possible to countenance the said submission made across the Bar, especially when the responsible officers of the respondents, on affidavit, have stated that the file pertaining to the detenu in the office of the Sponsoring Authority shows that the detenu is having workable knowledge of English Language having studied up to 10th standard, albeit in Marathi Medium. That is a plausible plea. For, it is common knowledge that even in Marathi Medium schools, in the State of Maharashtra, English Subject is taught as a compulsory subject from 1st standard since 2000, and, earlier to that, from 5th standard. It is one thing to say that the detenu is not conversant with English Language at all than to say that he has no workable knowledge of that language. Considering the above, the said petitioner has failed to substantiate that the detenu has no workable knowledge of English Language. 42. The counsel for the petitioner, however, relied on the decision in the case of Smt. Raz....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er to him or that he has had no opportunity whatsoever to explain it to the detenu at the same time. Suffice it to observe that the petitioner has not been able to substantiate the fact that the grounds of detention were not communicated to the detenu soon after he was detained on 20th July, 2011 or that he was unable to understand the contents of the order of detention and grounds of detention being in English and was, thus, denied opportunity to make representation at the earliest. As a matter of fact, a detailed, elaborate and comprehensive representation was made by the detenu as early as on 8th August, 2011 itself. That representation was made without any loss of time, which was obviously prepared by the detenu's advocate on the basis of instructions given by him or his relatives. Accordingly, the ground of challenge under consideration is devoid of merit. 43. The other contention at the instance of Detenu Waghmare is that no material was placed before the Detaining Authority to show that the I.E. Code was arranged by the detenu. On the contrary, the I.E. Code shows that the said Code was taken by Naeemuddin Saiyed on or about 10th December, 2009 - much before the said ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... For the same reasons, the argument under consideration will have to be rejected. It is not a case of non-existent or not relevant ground. 46. As no other ground is urged in Criminal Writ Petition Nos. 2332 and 2333 of 2011, respectively, besides the ones referred to above, both these petitions ought to fail. Re : Additional grounds in the case of the detenu Dhakne : 47. That takes us to the additional ground taken in the third petition. According to Detenu Dhakne, the Commissioner of Customs had suspended the C.H.A. Licence of the detenu's Company on or about 22nd March, 2011. The copy of the said suspension order was also sent to the Sponsoring Authority. However, the Sponsoring Authority did not place the said order of suspending C.H.A. Licence of the detenu's Company before the Detaining Authority. It was incumbent upon the Detaining Authority to have considered the said vital document before arriving at her subjective satisfaction. Besides, the Detaining Authority ought to have furnished copy of the said vital document to the detenu along with the Grounds of Detention, and in absence of the said document, has arrived at the subjective satisfaction which is not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....all his statements and the statements of his employee Shri. Bala B. Jadhav recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act 1962 wherein they had confessed about fraud committed by them were considered by the authorities for the suspension of the CHA licence. All the said statements were placed before the detaining authority. Hence the argument that copy of the said suspension order was not placed before the detaining authority does not hold good. Further the cancellation of CHA licence of the detenu is not the criteria for parameter for non indulgence in smuggling activities in future. It is merely one of the remedial measures taken for stopping the future participation of the detenu in similar matters. Further the detention of the detenu under COFEPOSA Act, 1974, is preventive measure only to prevent the detenu from indulging in smuggling activities. It is the irresponsible attitude of the detenu who as a bonafide CHA is bound by the obligations as mentioned in the Customs House Agents Regulations, 2004, which the detenu has failed to do. Hence it cannot be said that the detaining authority has considered piecemeal the documents placed before her. Therefore, it cannot be said that t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on is inapposite to the fact situation of the present case. In this case, as noted earlier, the detenu was found to be involved in commission of prejudicial activities in an organised manner along with others who were involved in smuggling goods. Obviously, the subjective satisfaction recorded by the Detaining Authority, is founded on the material placed before her that the detenu was involved in the commission of prejudicial activities and would continue with the prejudicial activities by taking help of others who were involved in smuggling, whose identity has not been disclosed. In our opinion, the principle stated in Abdul Sathar Ibrahim Manik v. Union of India and others reported in (1992) 1 SCC 1 can be usefully pressed into service to the fact situation of the present case. The learned A.P.P. has rightly placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Madan Lal Anand vs. Union of India & Ors. Reported in AIR 1990 SC 176, in particular, paragraphs 27 and 28 thereof. The argument of the detenu was that the Detaining Authority had relied upon and referred to the confessional statement of the detenu as recorded by the Collector under Section 108 of the Customs Ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Detaining Authority and the Deputy Secretary of the State Government. In paragraph 3 of the reply-affidavit of the Detaining Authority, it is stated as follows:- "3. I say that as the Detaining Authority I expeditiously considered the representation of the detenu which was made on 23-08-2011. The said representation was received in my office on 24-08-2011 late in the evening. Thereafter, by letter dated 26-08-2011 the parawise comments were called from the Sponsoring Authority. This letter dated 26-08-2011 was sent through ordinary post to the Sponsoring Authority. I say that on 23-09-2011 the parawise comments were received in my office. The concerned Assistant submitted the file to the Under Secretary on 26-09-2011. I say that during the said period there were holidays on 24-09-2011 and 25-09-2011." 54. In paragraph 5 of the reply-affidavit filed by the Deputy Secretary of the State Government, it is stated as follows:- "5. I say that the representation dated 23-08-2011 was received in the office on 24-08-2011 late in the evening. Thereafter, by letter dated 26-08-2011 the parawise comments were called from the Sponsoring Authority. This letter dated 26-08-2011 was s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n was again held on 12th September, 2011 and the final para-wise comments were approved and signed by the Joint Commissioner on 13th September, 2011. The para-wise comments were received on 14th September, 2011 and the Detaining Authority decided the representation on 27th September, 2011. The explanation as to why the representation was not decided by the Detaining Authority soon after its receipt on 14th September, 2011 has been offered. In that, in addition to the representation dated 23rd August, 2011, the detenu had sent second representation on 8th September, 2011, when his first representation was still being processed. That was received on 12th September, 2011. The para-wise comments were called in respect of that representation from the Sponsoring Authority on 13th September, 2011. The para-wise comments on the second representation were received in the office of the Detaining Authority on 23rd September, 2011. 24th and 25th September, 2011 were public holidays, being fourth Saturday and Sunday, respectively. The said comments with the endorsement by the Assistant were submitted before the Under Secretary on 26th September, 2011. The Detaining Authority eventually consider....