K.T.Sankaran, J.
Vafsa Maraikayar Habeer, Ramanathapuram, Tamil Nadu, who is the husband of the writ petitioner, has been detained as per Ext.P1 order of detention dated 18.12.2013 under Section 3(1)(i) and 3(1) (iii) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'COFEPOSA Act') on his arrest on 28.8.2013. The order of detention as well as the continuance of the detention are under challenge in this Writ Petition.
2. As stated above, the order of detention is dated 18.12.2013. The detenu was arrested on 28.12.2013 pursuant to the order of detention. Ext.P2 grounds of detention and the relied upon documents were served on the detenu. The detenu submitted representations dated 14.2.2014 to the Central Government as well as the State Government. The State Government rejected the representation on 24.2.2014 (Ext.R1(c)). The Central Government rejected the representation of the detenu on 5.3.2014 (Ext.R1(d)).
Ext.P4 (same as Ext.R1(e)) order of confirmation was passed on 20.3.2014.
3. The allegations against the detenu, as disclosed from the grounds of detention, are the following: On the basis of intelligence reports, on 28.8.2013, the Officers of Air Intelligence Unit, Air Customs, Cochin International Airport went onboard the Jet Airways 9W-561 which arrived from Sharjah to Kochi. The detenu was travelling in that Airways. He tried to re-enter the flight stating that he had left behind his mobile phone. The officers questioned him. He stated that he had only two hand baggages with him. He was travelling in the flight occupying seat No.29A. In the presence of the detenu and in the presence of independent witnesses, the Officers of Customs searched seat No.29A and other seats as well as the overhead lockers. On such search, it was found that five gold bars weighing one kilogram each wrapped with adhesive tape were kept underneath seat No.29A. On verification of the E-ticket and on questioning the detenu, it was confirmed that he was travelling in the flight occupying seat No.29A. He was also identified with reference to his Indian Passport and travel documents. The market value of the gold bars comes to ₹1,51,40,393/-. On examination of the hand baggages of the detenu, adhesive tapes, dress materials, food items, toiletries and black coloured leather shoes were recovered. The adhesive tapes were found to be of the same type as used for wrapping the gold bars. The detenu could not produce any bills for purchase of the gold. In the voluntary statement tendered under Section 108 of the Customs Act, the detenu stated that he had been working as a carrier of goods into foreign country and into India through passenger baggage mode, that he met one Mohammed Rabeek at Dubai who requested him to carry the gold to India and offered ₹10,000/- per kg. as remuneration to the detenu. Five gold bars were given. The detenu stated that the idea was on reaching Cochin International Airport, he had to hand over the gold to one Mohammed Usman who would pay ₹40,000/- to the detenu.
4. In the Bail Applications submitted by the detenu he retracted from the voluntary statement given by him. On his arrest under Section 104 of the Customs Act on 28.8.2013, the detenu was produced before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences) Court, Ernakulam on 29.8.2013 and he was remanded to judicial custody. His Bail Applications were rejected by the Court. However, bail was granted to the detenu as per the order dated 21.10.2013 passed by the High Court of Kerala, on certain conditions.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner raised various contentions on the basis of the grounds taken in the Writ Petition. Respondents 1 and 2 filed a detailed counter affidavit. Another counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the third respondent.
6. The petitioner contended that though it is mentioned in the grounds of detention about the grant of bail to the detenu, the detaining authority did not consider the fact that bail was granted to the detenu on stringent conditions. There is non-application of mind and non-consideration of proper grounds in the grounds of detention. It is submitted that the movements of the detenu were restricted and he was not permitted to go beyond the limits of Ernakulam District. The detenu was complying with the conditions of bail. These aspects were not considered by the detaining authority and therefore the subjective satisfaction is vitiated. The learned Director General of Prosecution submitted, with reference to the averments in paragraph 17 of the counter affidavit, that the detaining authority arrived at the subjective satisfaction that even though the detenu was on conditional bail, there was every chance of his absconding on the relaxation of the conditional bail and unless prevented through legal recourse available, the detenu would continue to engage in prejudicial activities in future as well. Therefore, the detaining authority was satisfied that in order to prevent him from indulging in such activities, it was necessary to detain him. It is also submitted that non-availability of Passport would not deter the detenu from committing prejudicial activities. The subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority was proper, legal and justifiable. He also relied on the decision in Abdul Sathar Ibrahim Manik v. Union of India and others (AIR 1991 SC 2261).
7. In Abdul Sathar Ibrahim Manik v. Union of India and others (AIR 1991 SC 2261), the Supreme Court held thus:
“4. We see no force in the first submission namely that there was no compelling necessity for passing the detention order. It is true that when the detention order was passed on 7-11-1990 the detenu was in jail and his bail application also was rejected and his passport also was seized. But the detaining authority has mentioned in the grounds that "I am aware that you are under judicial custody and possibility of your release on bail in the near future cannot be ruled out. Also nothing prevents you from moving bail application in the jurisdictional court and getting released on bail".Therefore it cannot be said that the detaining authority did not apply his mind to this aspect. It is entirely within his subjective satisfaction whether there are such compelling circumstances or not. He has noted that though the detenu was in jail there is likelihood of his being released and therefore it is clear that he has applied his mind to this aspect also. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on a judgment of this Court in Dharmendra Suganchand Chelawat V. Union of India, (1990) 1 SCC 746 : (AIR 1990 SC 1196), wherein it is observed that an order of detention can be validly passed against a person in custody and for that purpose it is necessary that the grounds of detention must show that the detaining authority was aware of the fact that the detenu was already in detention and there were compelling reasons justifying such detention and that there should be cogent material on the basis of which the detaining authority may be satisfied that there are compelling reasons such as that the detenu is likely to be released from custody in the near future and the nature of the antecedents and activities of the detenu which indicate that he is likely to indulge in such activities if released and therefore it is necessary to detain him in order to prevent him from engaging in such activities. But we may observe that what would be the compelling reasons in the context would depend on the facts of each case. In this case the allegation is that 50 gold biscuits of foreign origin were found in either side of the handle inside the lock system of the suitcase. This itself manifests the expertise of the carrier in smuggling. The detaining authority was aware that the detenu was in custody but he was satisfied that there is every likelihood of his being released on bail and he is likely to indulge in such smuggling activities. It is mentioned in the counter-affidavit that the remand period of the detenu was to expire on 10-11-90 and that was also a ground which impelled the detaining authority to think that he was likely to be released on bail. This was the material before the detaining authority on the basis of which he was satisfied that there were compelling reasons to pass the detention order. Having carefully considered the submission of the learned Counsel we are unable to say that there were no compelling reasons.”
8. Another contention of the petitioner is that there is inordinate and unexplained delay in passing the order of detention and hence the grounds of detention have become stale in as much as the live and proximate link between the incidents and the order of detention is snapped. The details furnished in paragraph 13 of the counter affidavit of respondents 1 and 2 would disclose that the Sponsoring Authority submitted the proposal on 21.9.2013 which was received by the detaining authority on 23.9.2013, the Screening Committee considered the proposal on 1.11.2013, on 3.12.2013 the detaining authority decided to issue the order of detention and the order of detention was issued on 18.12.2013. It is also pointed out that the Screening Committee met on 1.11.2013 and considered the relevant facts and opined that it was a fit case for the issuance of the order of detention. Thereafter, the entire file was placed before the detaining authority. The detaining authority examined the proposal in detail and applied its mind on the materials available, statement given by the detenu and possible implications of law. In the facts and circumstances, we do not think that there was delay in issuing the order of detention. The live link between the incident and the order of detention is not snapped. Within four months of the date of incident, the order of detention was passed.
9. It is submitted by the petitioner that the relevant and vital materials were not placed before the detaining authority and consequently the order of detention was passed without considering the relevant and necessary documents. Therefore, the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is vitiated for non-consideration of relevant materials. It is submitted that the retraction statement of the detenu was not placed before the detaining authority though mention is made about the same in the grounds of detention. This contention was answered in paragraph 14 of the counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 and 2, wherein it is stated that the detaining authority was aware of the fact that the detenu had retracted from his voluntary statement dated 28.8.2013 and that retraction was made in the Bail Application dated 30.8.2013. Learned Director General of Prosecution submitted that there is no separate retraction statement and the retraction is contained only in the Bail Application. In Ext.P2 grounds of detention, this position is made clear that the retraction is contained in the application for bail submitted by the detenu. In paragraph 10 of the grounds of detention, it is stated thus:
“... I have considered the fact that you have retracted from your earlier statement tendered under section 108 of the Customs Act in your various bail applications by alleging that you were forced to write a false statement as dictated by the officers and your signature was also obtained in certain documents. I have examined your averments in your various bail applications meticulously and on applying mind, I am satisfied that your averment in your bail applications that you were forced to write a false statement as dictated by the officers and your signature was also obtained in certain documents are only an afterthought to escape from the clutches of law and is contrary to facts ”
10. In view of the statements in the grounds of detention that the retraction is contained only in the bail applications, the case put forward by the petitioner that the retraction statement was not supplied is unsustainable. Copy of the bail applications were supplied to the detenu and there is no case that he has not received the same.
11. The petitioner contended that the communications received from the Commissionerates of Customs at Chennai and Trichy were suppressed from the detaining authority, though the letters to such authorities have been placed before and considered by the detaining authority. Hence the subjective satisfaction is vitiated. This contention is dealt with in paragraph 15 of the counter affidavit of respondents 1 and 2. It is stated that there was no suppression of materials. The sponsoring authority received the communication from the Commissionerates of Customs at Chennai after the meeting of the screening committee was over. The communication from the Commissionerates of Customs at Chennai would disclose that the detenu was involved in other similar activities. However, the same were not relied upon for the purpose of issuing the order of detention. Hence non-consideration of the communication will no way cause any prejudice to the detenu. Reference to the Customs authorities seeking opinion from the said authority was made in the grounds of detention only for the narration of facts. A document made use of only for reference of statement of facts is not a vital document and failure to supply the copy thereof would not vitiate the order of detention. The failure to consider that document would not vitiate the subjective satisfaction as well.
12. In J.Abdul Hakeem v. State of T.N. and others (2005 Crl.L.J. 3745= AIR 2005 SC 3677), the Supreme Court held:
“10. In the present case although the detaining authority in the grounds of detention had referred to the passports and the entries made therein for the foreign trips made by the detenu but that cannot be said to have been relied upon by the detaining authority for passing the detention order. The detenu- appellant has admitted in his statement dated 17-7-2004 which was in his own hand-writing, that he had an old passport under which he travelled 23 times to Sri Lanka out of which 10 visits were made to Hong Kong via Sri Lanka; that he had travelled once to Singapore and under the current passport he had travelled 4 times to Hong Kong via Sri Lanka. It is this statement of the detenu-appellant made before the authorities on 17-7-2004, was the basis for passing of the detention order and reference of the two passports containing entries of the foreign visits by the detenu is only a passing reference. The passport entries are not made the basis of detention order. The basis is admission of the foreign visits made by the detenu in his statement. We fail to understand as to how non-supply of copies of the passports of the appellant-detenu prejudicially affect his right to make a proper representation against the order of detention. The non- supply of copies of the passports will not have the effect of vitiating the detention order.”
13. In Haridas Amarchand Shah of Bombay v. K.L.Verma and others (AIR 1989 SC 497), the Supreme Court held:
“7. It was firstly contended on behalf of the appellant that the application for bail and the order dated September 15, 1987 by the Metropolitan Magistrate granting conditional bail of Rs.1 lakh with one surety of like amount though placed before the detaining authority, the application for variation of the condition and the order made thereon by the Magistrate on September 21, 1987 was not produced before the detaining authority. This is a vital document and non- consideration of the same by the detaining authority results in the order being illegal. The decision in Ashadevi wife of Gopal Ghermal Mehta (detenu) v. K. Shiveraj, Addl. Chief Secretary to the Government of Gujarat, (1979) 2 SCR 215: (AIR 1979 SC447), was cited at the bar. In this case it has been observed by this Court that documents which are vital and necessary for formation of subjective satisfaction which is the prerequisite for making an order of detention having not been placed before the detaining authority before making the detention order, the order of detention will get vitiated. The detention was to prevent the detenu from indulging in Hawala business i.e. making various payments to various persons in this country on receiving instructions from Rafiq from Dubai. The application for variation of condition of bail and the order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate varying the condition of bail is, in our opinion, not a vital and material document in as much as the granting of bail by the Magistrate enabled the detenu to come out ,and carry on his business activities as before. Condition imposed by the Magistrate directing the detenu to appear before the office of the Enforcement Department every day between 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. has been varied to the extent that "the accused to attend Enforcement Department as and when required'. The condition imposed by the Magistrate has no relation to the activities carried on by the detenu and as such the High Court after considering all the circumstances held that the order varying the condition of bail was not a relevant document and failure to produce the document before the detaining authority before arriving at his subjective satisfaction had not vitiated the order. We agree with the same.”
14. In Baby Devassy Chully alias Bobby v. Union of India and others ((2013) 4 SCC 531), the Supreme Court held that documents having no link with the issue cannot be construed as relevant and non-supply of the same would not be fatal.
15. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was delay in considering the representation by the State Government as well as the Central Government. He relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Rajammal v. State of Tamil Nadu and another (AIR 1999 SC 684), wherein the Supreme Court held that the test is not the duration or range of delay, but how it is explained by the authority concerned. The Supreme Court held:
“9. The position, therefore, now is that if delay was caused on account of any indifference or lapse in considering the representation such delay will adversely affect further detention of the prisoner. In other words, it is for the authority concerned to explain the delay, if any, in disposing the representation. It is not enough to say that the delay was very short. Even longer delay can as well be explained. So the test is not the duration or range of delay, but how it is explained by the authority concerned.”
16. Respondents 1 and 2 contended that the representation dated 14.2.2014 was considered by the State Government and it was disposed of by Ext.R1(c) order dated 24.2.2014. Hence, there is no delay. In the counter affidavit of the third respondent, the various steps taken for getting parawise comments from the sponsoring authority and the detaining authority are mentioned. After conducting detailed examination of the issues raised in the representations and comments of the sponsoring authority and the detaining authority, the Under Secretary (COFEPOSA) submitted the file along with all the documents with comprehensive note to the Joint Secretary (COFEPOSA) on 4.3.2014. The Joint Secretary submitted the file to the Special Secretary and Director General, Central Economic Intelligence Bureau, New Delhi on 4.3.2014 itself. The representation was carefully considered by the Special Secretary and Director General, Central Economic Intelligence Bureau, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi, on behalf of the Central Government and the same was rejected on 5.3.2014. Thus it was contended that there is no unexplained delay in considering and disposing of the representation by the Central Government. On considering the contentions put forward by the petitioner and the reply given by the respondents in the respective counter affidavits, we do not think that there is any unexplained delay in disposing of the representations submitted on behalf of the detenu. The learned Director General of Prosecution submitted that from the facts and circumstances available on record it is clear that the detenu travelled abroad on several occasions for the purpose of smuggling. He also cited the decision of the Supreme Court in Sitthi Zuraina Begum v. Union of India and others (AIR 2003 SC 323), wherein the Supreme Court held thus:
“9.The stand of the department is that whether there can be detention on a solitary instance would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case, on the magnitude of the case and other attendant circumstances. In the present case, it is stated that detenu's passport disclosed that he had made several trips abroad and he was not a man of such affluence as to make so many trips out of the country unless they be in the context of his business activities. Therefore, considering the number of trips he had made out of the country, the volume of goods seized now and the prima facie misdeclaration of value, an inference can be drawn that the detenu was a part of bigger network in bringing the goods for commercial distribution inside the country by avoiding the payment of duty. In this background, absence of passport will not be a handicap to the detenu for his activities in the present case in which the fact situation is different from the one available in Rajesh Gulati's case. Nor can we confine the meaning of the word 'smuggling' only to going out of country and coming back with goods which are contraband or to evade duty but may encourage such activities as well by dealing in such goods.”
For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that the challenge against the order of detention as well as the continued detention fails. The Writ Petition lacks merits and it is, accordingly, dismissed.
(K.T.SANKARAN) Judge (ANIL K. NARENDRAN) Judge ahz/