IMPORTANT POINTS
• The documents sought for by the detenu by reason of his arrest and detention after four years assumes relevance, to be included in his representation to make it effective. Mohammed Zakir was a case in which the documents relied on were served on the detenu after a month, which though is much lesser here; all the same has application since the period of delay or its quantum has no bearing in the teeth of the prescription of five days for such supply. A delay of one day or a month or an year or half does not permit this Court to deviate from the statutory mandate which has more rigour in the case of a preventive detention on a subjective satisfaction, without trial.
• As far as the CCTV footage, our observation that it is covered by the earlier judgment of the Division Bench in the case of the co-detenus would suffice-But the video footage was in a compact disc, which, without electronic facilities cannot be viewed. Despite at the earlier instance, this Court interfered with an identical order, merely for reason of not providing such electronic facilities to the detenus, who were in custody no care was taken to ensure such a defect not recurring.

JUDGMENT :

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

1. The petitioner seeks release of her husband, Kutty Aboobaker Imthiyaz, detained under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA Act).

2. Preventive detention orders similar to the one impugned, Ext.P2, were passed on 28.05.2015 as against a number of persons involved in orgainised smuggling; many of whom were arrested and detained immediately after the order was passed. Kutty Aboobacker Imthiaz, the detenu with whom we are concerned was detained on 24.01.2019 after about four years. The documents upon which reliance is placed in the order, was supplied to him on 28.01.2019. A communication dated 04.02.2019 speaking of arrangement of facilities for viewing the compact disc, supplied earlier was also served on the detenu on 06.02.2019 by and through the Superintendent Central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram. The detenu through his Advocate made a representation to the Detaining Authority by Ext.P5 dated 11.02.2019, one to the Central Government by Ext.P6 dated 12.02.2019 and another by Ext.P7 dated 15.02.2019 to the Advisory Board. The Advisory Board was constituted within five weeks as provided in the Statute, which heard the detenu on 22.03.2019, and affirmed the order of detention, based on which recommendation, Ext.P8 dated 16.04.2019 was issued by the Central Government. Ext.P8 affirmed the order detaining the detenu for a period of one year from 24.01.2019. The representations filed before the Central Government and the Detaining Authority were also rejected thereafter. The detenu is still in custody and his wife challenges his continued detention.

3. Sri. P.A. Augustian the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner assail the order on various grounds relying on precedents. His first challenge is on the delay in execution of the detention order which is stated to be without any reason. The authorities took absolutely no steps to apprehend the detenu and at this point of time, after about four years, there exists no live link with the alleged actions, warranting detention of the detenu; that too on a preventive measure. Nothing similar has occurred in the meanwhile, warranting detention. Saeed Zakir Hussain Malik vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2012 SC 3235 is placed, in support of that contention. Further it is argued that there is inordinate delay in consideration of the representations, dated 11.02.2019 and 12.02.2019, which were disposed of only by Ext.P9 and P10 both dated 18.04.2019. The valuable right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India has been violated by this inordinate delay. Reliance is placed on Ichhu Devi Choraria vs. Union of India, 1980 (4) SCC 531.

4. The third ground urged is that the detenu had made a prayer for supply of certain details and materials, in his representation, which was never considered by the authorities and this caused serious prejudice to his right to make an effective representation. Further the CCTV footage which is the connecting link, of the one episode caught red-handed, with the allegations of a smuggling network, though supplied to him along with the other documents relied on in the detention order; there was no effective steps taken to ensure that he had an opportunity to view the same. In this context it is pointed out that on that compelling ground, the preventive detention order against four of the other accused were set aside by this Court in W.A. (Crl) No. 386/2015 and connected cases, by a decision produced as Ext.P11. The decision was on 28.01.2016 and the authorities despite being aware of the same, failed to ensure that the detenu had an opportunity to view the video footage which failure was intentional. The fourth ground also arises from that decision; which, it is alleged, was not supplied to the detenu despite his specific request. A Division Bench judgment in W.P. (Crl) No. 479/2018 dated 12.04.2019, is placed before us to buttress the contention of prejudice caused, by rea