TMI Blog1980 (9) TMI 272X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the detenu who is her husband. Writ Petition (Crl.) 528 of 1980 has been filed by Tushar Thakker on behalf of the detenu, Harish Vrajalal Thakker. 2. The premises of the detenu in writ petition 481/1980 were searched by Officers of the Directorate of Enforcement in connection with certain alleged illegal remittances made by certain persons through M/s. Thomas Cook (Overseas) Ltd., and some recoveries of purported incriminating documents were seized. The detenu was arrested on the same day and remanded to judicial custody. He was released later on bail on the condition that he should attend the Office of the Directorate of Enforcement daily. On his applications this condition was progressively relaxed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. 3. On September 5, 1979, the detenu was arrested in pursuance of a detention order dated August 31, 1979 issued by Shri B. B. Gujral, Additional Secretary, in the Ministry of Finance (Revenue), Government of India. The grounds of detention under Section 3 of the COFEPOSA were also supplied to him on the same date. 4. On September 8, 1979, the detenu addressed a letter to the Additional Secretary to the Government of India, asking for supply ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... POSA. This application also was not considered by the Central Government, but the detenu again received a communication dated February 7, 1980 that the said representation had been considered by the detaining authority and rejected. 8. In the writ petition, the detenu had also challenged the constitutional validity of Sections 5A and 12A of the COFEPOSA, but this ground has not been pressed at the time of arguments. It may be noted that the detenu is under preventive detention since September 5,1979 for a period of one year, apart from the period he had remained in custody under the CrPC. 9. The first contention raised on behalf of the detenu was that he was not furnished with copies of the materials and documents referred to or relied upon in the grounds of detention, although he had repeatedly made applications for obtaining the same; that the offer to take inspection, instead of copies, made on September 8, 1979, was not an adequate substitute for the supply of the copies'. In this way, the detenus right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution to be furnished with such materials, with reasonable expedition to enable him to make an effective representation was violated. 10. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f those materials, by a letter from jail on September 8,1979. All the copies were not supplied till October 12, 1979. It is regrettable that the letter dated September 8, 1979 of the detenu for copies took 11 days to travel from the jail to the detaining authority in the Ministry of Finance, New Delhi. Surely some functionary of the Government in some office was grossly negligent in conveying or transmitting this letter to the detaining authority. Although the Advocate of the detenu as a matter of additional precaution to eliminate office delays, again directly wrote on September 15,1979 a letter to the Office of the Directorate of Enforcement for immediate supply of the copies mentioned in the enclosure, as he thought that the documents would be in his office, yet instead of promptly supplying the copies repeatedly asked for by the detenu, the Advocate was told to come and take inspection of the documents. The inspection of the documents, as the Advocate rightly demurred, was no substitute for the constitutional obligation to furnish the detenu promptly with copies of all the materials relied upon in the grounds of detention, to enable him to prepare and make a purposeful represen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ake inspection of the documents on September 24, 1979. The detenu's counsel and the detenu himself being handicapped, did not take the inspection. 16. The detenu on September 25, 1979 made an application for revocation of the detention order to the Central Government. This application/representation was made by him through his Advocate, who sent it under cover of his letter dated Sept. 25, 1979 to the Superintendent of Jail, Bombay, with a request that the representation be forwarded to the Central Government. This representation was not considered by the Central Government. In this representation, the detenu had also complained that he had not been supplied all the statements and other materials relied upon in the grounds of detention. The authorities dilly-dallied in supplying the copies. Another communication was received by the counsel for the detenu, that he could take inspection of the documents instead of the copies. The Advocate wrote to the Office of the Directorate of Enforcement that inspection was not an adequate substitute for the supply of the documents. He repeated his request for urgent supply of the copies. Thereafter on October 4, 1979 some of the copies were su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
