DELHI HIGH COURT
V.B. Bansal, J.
Bhagat Raj- Petitioner
versus
Union of India & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Writ No. 482 of 1990
Decided on 25.4.1991
Counsel for the parties:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Naveen Malhotra, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Jagdev Singh, Adv.
IMPORTANT POINT
Copies of the documents which are illegible have in fact not been supplied.
Headnote:Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 - Section 3(1) - Detention order passed. Constitution of India, 1949 - Article 226 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Detenu challenged validity of the order of his detention - Copies of documents relied upon by detaining authority supplied to the detenu - Copies illegible. Detenu deprived of his right of making an effective representation - Whether impugned order liable to be quashed? (Yes) - Effect - Detenu set at liberty. (Paras 1, 16 & 17)
JUDGMENT
V.B. Bansal, J: - Bhagat Raj a detenu under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (as amended), hereinafter referred to as "the Act", has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India r/w Section 482, Cr.P.C. praying that the detenion order dated 1.8.1990 may be quashed and he may be set at liberty.
2. On 1.8.1990 Mahinder Prasad, Joint Secretary to the Govt of India exercising the powers under Section 3(1) of the Act passed an order for the detention of Bhagat Raj with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the augmentation of foreign exchange. The order was served on the petitioner on 10.8.1990. However, grounds of detention alongwith the documents relied upon were supplied to him on 14.8.1990.
3. Briefly stated the facts leading for the passing of the said order arc as under:
4. There was a specific information with the Enforcement Directorate that Bhagat Raj and his employee Prem Kumar were indulging in unauthorised purchase and sale of foreign exchange and gold on very large scale. Accordingly on 28.3.1990 a search of shop No. 4456, Katra Raiji, Pahar Ganj resulted in the recovery of Rs. 68,010 and documents besides Rs. 1500/- from the person of Prem Kumar. A sum of Rs. 2,20,000/- and documents were recovered from the residential premises of-Bhagat Raj. On the same day a sum of Rs. 9,000/- and documents were recovered from the residential premises of aforesaid Prem Kumar.
5. Statement of Prem Kumar was recorded by the Officer of the Enforcement Directorate under Section 40 of the Act. Statements of other persons including Panna Lal, Manohar Lal and Hava Singh were also recorded. Bhagat Lal, was, however, not available. On the basis of the material collected by the officers of the Enforcement Directorate a reference was made to the detaining authority who passed the aforesaid order.
6. A reference was made to the Advisory Board for opinion on 16.8.1990 and on getting the report the order of detention of the petitioner was confirmed on 24th September 1990.
7. I have heard Shri Naveen Malhotra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Jagdev Singh, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2. I have gone through the records.
8. The petitioner has taken many grounds challenging his detention. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, restricted his submission on one point namely delay in the supply of legible copies of the documents relied upon by the detaining authority for the detention of the petitioner.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a representation dated 27.8.1990 was made by the petitioner to the detaining authority for the supply of legible copies of the documents relied upon which have been supplied only on 12.11.1990. He has, thus, submitted that the petitioner has been deprived of his valuable right of making an effective representation against his detention on account of which the detention of the petitioner is bad.
10. This ground has specifically been taken by the petitioner in paras 9 and 10 of the petition. It has been claimed by the petitioner the documentsA-l, A-2, A-5, B-29, E-5, F-5, F-6, G-2, G-4, G-6, A-5, B-46, B-57, C-X, C-6, C-Z, D-3, D-4, D-5, D-14, D-21, D-20, D-22, D-23, D-24,D- 25, E-l, E-2, E-3, E-4, E-5 and E-7 are illegible. He has, thus, submitted that these were the documents required to be supplied to the petitioner pari passu with the grounds of detention and the documents being illegible it cannot be said that the requirement of law has been fulfilled. Learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 has submitted that the representation made by the petitioner was duly considered by the Central Govt and was rejected on 18.9.1990. He has also submitted that as per the direction in the memorandum dated 18.9. 1990 additional documents were supplied to the detenu on 12.11.1990. He has, thus, submitted that there has not been any violation of the provisions of