2006 (3) Crimes 620
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT (DB)
Debi Prasad Sengupta and Sadhan
Kumar Gupta, JJ.
Smt. Usha Agarwal — Appellant
versus
Union of India & Ors. — Respondents
W.P. No. 23908(W) of 2005
Decided on 21-04-2006

IMPORTANT POINTS
1.Supply of illegible copies virtually amounts to non supply of relevant documents, which vitiates order of detention.
2.There is no hard and fast rule that merely because there is a long gap between offending act and date of order of detention, the casual link must be taken to be broken and satisfaction arrived at by detaining authority must be regarded as in-genuine. It is ultimately question of satisfaction of Court to ascertain as to whether detaining authority has explained delay satisfactorily.

Headnote:Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 — Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 — Section 3(1) — Import of duty free goods by detenu under Annual Advance licences and thereby

       divert to different places without utili-zing the same in manufacture of resultant export products in contravention of exim Policy and Customs Act — Detention order — Habeas corpus petition there against — An order of detention vitiates if any relevant document is not placed before detaining authority — Documents however which were allegedly withheld, were not at all relevant documents and no wrong committed by sponsoring authorities in not placing those documents before detaining authority — Order of detention was passed on basis of materials which were very much existent — No Consideration of non-existent materials by detaining authority — Documents supplied being quite legible, detenu not deprived of making an effective representation on basis of such documents — Although there was a delay of about nine and half months between offending act and/or registration of case and date of passing order of detention, such delay was sufficiently explained — In view of nature of offending act, manner in which such act was continued for a considerable period, and conduct of accused who after his first appearance absconded for a long period, detaining authority rightly concluded that it was necessary to detain detenu to prevent him from indulging in any smuggling activity in future — No delay in supplying copies of relevant documents to detenu — Even a solitary incident may speak of volumes about potentialities of detenu and merely on ground that there was no antecedent, the detention order cannot be quashed — Contention that order of detention was vitiated as it was passed on basis of a solitary incident of non-fulfilment of export obligations under

       Advance licences was found unacceptable — No undue delay in delaying with representation of detenu — Offending act committed by detenu coming within ambit of smuggling — No ground to quash detention order — Petition dismissed.(Paras 14, 18, 20, 27, 28,

       30, 35, 37, 39, 44, 47)

       Facts of the case:

       1.The present application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for issuance of a writ in nature of habeas corpus for setting aside order of detention passed against detenu. The detenu herein in the instant case

       imported duty free goods under Annual Advance Licenses and thereby diverted it to different places without utilising same in manufacture of resultant export products in contravention of exim policy and Customs Act.

       2.Findings of the Court: The Court held that an order of detention vitiates if any relevant document is not placed before detaining authority. Documents however which were allegedly withheld, were not at all relevant documents and no wrong was committed by sponsoring authorities in not placing those documents before detaining authority. Order of detention was passed on basis of materials which were very much existent. No consideration of non-existent materials by detaining authority. Documents supplied being quite legible, detenu was not deprived of making an effective representation on basis of such documents. Although there was a delay of about nine and half months between offending act and/or registration of case and date of passing order of detention, such delay was sufficiently explained. In view of nature of offending act, manner in which such act was continued for a considerable period, and conduct of accused who after his first appearance absconded for a long period, detaining authority rightly concluded that it was necessary to detain detenu to prevent him from indulging in any smuggling activity in future. There was no delay in supplying copies of relevant documents to detenu. Even a solitary incident may speak of volumes about potentialities of detenu and merely on ground that there was no antecedent, the detention order cannot be quashed. Contention that order of detention was vitiated as it was passed on basis of a solitary incident of non fulfilment of export obligations under

       Advance licences was found unacceptable. Since offending act committed by detenu coming within ambit of smuggling, no ground to quash detention order. Petition accordingly dismissed.

       Result : Petition dismissed.