2005 (11) TMI 465 - SC - Customs

Voluntary statement - whether for non-consideration of the relevant document the order of detention is vitiated? Held that - It is not disputed that the letter addressed to the Superintendent of Customs (Air) Customs House Chennai was in fact delivered on 7.1.2004 as is apparent from the seal on the receipt and as admitted in the counter affidavit by the State of Tamil Nadu. There is no reason why it should not have been placed before the detaining authority for his consideration. It has not been disputed that the said letter of retraction contained relevant material which ought to have been considered by the detaining authority before passing an order of detention. Since relevant material was withheld from the detaining authority the order of detention must be struck down as being illegal. We accordingly quash the order of detention. We should not be understood to have laid down a broad proposition to the effect that a letter addressed to any officer of any Department of the Government would amount to service thereof on the State. It depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. In the facts of this case we have found that the detenu addressed the letter of retraction to a responsible officer of the Department of Customs and in the circumstances he had no choice in the matter as he could not anticipate that an order of detention may be passed and therefore the letter should be addressed to the sponsoring authority. This appeal is accordingly allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to detention order under COFEPOSA based on non-consideration of retraction letter by detaining authority.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the High Court's judgment dismissing the Writ Petition challenging the detention order under COFEPOSA. The appellant was detained for carrying cellphones concealed in a TV set without declaration. The respondent claimed the appellant voluntarily admitted guilt, leading to his arrest and remand. However, the appellant retracted the statement, alleging coercion and lack of knowledge about the concealed items. The main contention was the non-consideration of the retraction letter by the detaining authority. The appellant argued that the letter, sent through his advocate and received by Customs officials, was not placed before the detaining authority. The respondents claimed the letter should have been addressed to the sponsoring authority, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Chennai. However, the Court disagreed, stating the detenu had no knowledge of impending detention when retracting the statement. The letter was sent to a responsible Customs officer, and its receipt was acknowledged. The Court found the letter contained relevant material that should have been considered before detention. As the detaining authority was not presented with this crucial information, the detention order was deemed illegal and quashed. The Court clarified that the effectiveness of addressing a letter to a government officer depends on the case's circumstances. In this instance, the detenu had no reason to anticipate detention under COFEPOSA, justifying the letter's delivery to a Customs officer. The appeal was allowed, emphasizing the importance of considering all relevant material before issuing detention orders under COFEPOSA.