R. P. DHOLAKIA, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner has been detained under the provisions of conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (as amended), hereinafter referred to as cofeposa Act, by the order dated 14th August, 2001 passed by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, department of Revenue, New Delhi.

( 2 ) IN the order of detention, it was stated that the detaining authority was satisfied that with a view to prevent the detenue from smuggling goods in future, it was necessary to detain him under the COFEPOSA Act and hence, the order of detention was passed.

( 3 ) HEARD Mr. Y. S. Lakhani, learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr. U. I. Vyas, learned Addl. Central Govt. Standing Counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. S. S. Patel, learned AGP for the respondent No. 3-State and also perused the material on record.

( 4 ) DRAWING my attention towards Para 15 of the grounds of detention as also annexure-D, Mr. Lakhani has contended that since the statement made by Vinodray sojitra on 13. 6. 2000 had been retracted by him on same day itself, said retraction of statement made on 13. 6. 2000 ought to have been placed before the detaining authority by the sponsoring authority being a vital document. It was further contended that though the statements of Vinodray Sojitra recorded on 9. 6. 2000, 13. 6. 2000, 14. 6. 2000 and 28. 6. 2000 were placed before the detaining authority, other statements of said vinodray Sojitra recorded on 16. 6. 2000, 29. 6. 2000, 30. 6. 2000, 14. 7. 2000, 19. 7. 2000 and 20. 7. 2000 were not placed before it. To support his argument, he has drawn my attention towards remand application dated 24. 7. 2000 and also the remand application no. 217/2000 made in the Court on 10. 6. 2000 seeking remand of said Sojitra and order passed on it by the Court remanding him to police custody till 12. 6. 2000 and respective orders passed thereafter remanding said Vinodray Sojitra to judicial custody till 8. 8. 2000 and thereafter ordering him to be released on bail and contended that all these remand applications and orders passed on them, being vital in nature, ought to have been placed before the detaining authority and copies thereof ought to have been supplied to the detenu. It was further contended that though the further statement of bodhu Gulam Sheikh recorded on 28. 11. 2000 was produced before the detaining authority, his initial statement recorded on 14. 7. 2000 and other statements recorded on 19. 7. 2000, 20. 7. 2000, 26. 7. 2000, 1. 8. 2000, 3. 8. 2000, 14. 8. 2000 and 16. 8. 2000, remand application and further remand applications as also the orders passed on them by the court and order dated 13. 9. 2000 passed by the Court granting bail to said Bodhu gulam Sheikh, though vital in nature, were not placed before it. It was further contended that though the statements of Puneet Rungta recorded on 27. 7. 2000 and 4. 12. 2000 were produced before the detaining authority, vital documents and informations namely, other statements of said Puneet Rungta recorded on 1. 8. 2000, 2. 8. 2000, 3. 8. 2000 and 14. 8. 2000, the fact of said Puneet Rungtas arrest on 27. 7. 2000, puneet Rungtas remand to judicial custody from 28. 7. 2000 till 8. 8. 2000 and then upto 17. 8. 2000, said Puneet Rungtas retraction of statements alleged to have made by him when he was produced before the Court on 28. 7. 2000, his statements vide Retraction application before the Court retracting the statements alleged to have been made by him on 1. 8. 2000, 2. 8. 2000, 3. 8. 2000 and 4. 8. 2000, said Puneet Rungtas extension of remand for 14 days pursuant to his application for bail on 17. 8. 2000 and his release on bail on 17. 8. 2000 were not placed before it. According to him, since all the aforesaid vital documents and informations were not placed before the detaining authority by the sponsoring authorities, the detaining authority was impaired in arriving at a subjective satisfacti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document