JUDGMENT

1. Leave granted. In challenge is the judgment and order dated 04.03.2015 rendered by the High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1529 of 2014 sustaining the orders of detention dated 27.05.2014 and 13.06.2014 by the appropriate authority passed Under Sections 3(1)(i) and 3(1)(iii) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short, hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act') qua the detenu Barik Biswas, brother of the Appellant.

2. We have heard Mr. Gopal Subramaniam, learned senior Counsel for the Appellant and Ms. Pinky Anand, learned Additional Solicitor General, for the Union of India.

3. The skeletal facts relevant to be noticed are that on 08.03.2014, the detenu was arrested under the Customs Act at about 1.30 p.m. while he was travelling in a Toyota Fortuner car bearing registration No. WB 26 S 2600 in Beliaghata area of Taki Road, district of North 24 Parganas. The car was being driven by one Moksed Mandal and on a search thereof 44.659 kilograms of smuggled gold was recovered by the Revenue Intelligence Authorities. The detenu, though arrested, was later released on bail by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kolkata on 12.03.2014. The bail was, however, cancelled eventually on 14.05.2014 against which he preferred Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 4387 of 2014 which was disposed of by this Court on 28.05.2014 in the following terms:

"We are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the High Court cancelling the bail of the Petitioner which was granted to him by the trial court, at the same time, having regard to the nature of issue involved in the matter, we direct the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence to complete the Investigation expeditiously and preferably within four weeks from today. The moment, investigation is complete and challan is Filed in the Court, the Petitioner shall be at liberty to move an application for regular bail which shall be considered by the trial court without being influenced by any observation made in the impugned order by the High Court."

4. As the text of the order would reveal, thereby this Court, while declining to interfere with the order of cancellation of bail of the detenu, required the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence to complete the investigation expeditiously and preferably within four weeks therefrom. It was further observed that the moment the investigation was complete and challan was filed in the court, he would be at liberty to move an application for regular bail which would be considered by the trial court without being influenced by any observation made in the order of cancellation passed by the High Court.

5. Pursuant to this order, the detenu surrendered on 11.06.2014 and was taken into custody. It is a matter of record that the orders of detention referred to hereinabove was served on him on 16.06.2014.

6. As the pleaded facts and the documents on record would reveal, by then, the detaining authority on 27.05.2014 had passed an order Under Section 3(1) of the Act for his detention with a view to prevent him from smuggling goods and effecting transportation and concealment of the smuggled goods in future. In a separate communication dated 27.05.2014 of the Government of India, Ministry of Finance. Department of Revenue, Central Economic Intelligence Bureau (COFEPOSA Unit), signed by the Joint Secretary to the Government and addressed to the Appellant, the materials taken note of in passing the said order were recorded. To reiterate, however, none of these two communications were served on the detenu on that date or immediately thereafter. It was on 12.06.2014, that a letter was addressed by the Additional Director General, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Kolkata senior unit to the Joint Secretary COFEPOSA, Central Economic Intelligence Bureau COFEPOSA Unit, New Delhi bringing to the notice of the latter amongst others, the fact that the order of detention dated 27.05.2014 had not been