Criminal Writ Petition No. 703 of 1995

11th July, 1996

Petitioner Counsel: Mr. M. G. KARMALI with Mrs. A.M.Z. ANSARI
Respondent Counsel: Mr. R. M. AGRAWAL, Mrs. V. K. TAHILRAMANI

Cases Cited:
Cr. Appeal No. 678 of 1985 5 Dt/- 20-12-1985 (SC) [Para 6]
Cr. W. P. No. 397 of 1992 Dt/- 22-4-1992 (Bom) [Para 7]
Cr. W. P. No. 833 of 1992 Dt/- 15-9-1992 (Bom) [Para 8]
Cr. W. P. No. 991 of 1992 Dt/- 23-10-1992 (Bom) [Para 8]
Cr. W. P. No. 425 of 1992 Dt/- 29-9-1992 (Bom) [Para 8]
AIR 1951 SC 174 [Para 8]
AIR 1966 SC 816 [Para 8]
Cr. W. P. No. 165 of 1986 Dt/- 13-8-1986 (Bom) [Para 9]
Cr. W. P. No. 193 of 1985 Dt/- 25-9-1985 (Bom) [Para 9]
AIR 1991 SC 2261 [Para 11]
AIR 1979 SC 420 [Para 12]
AIR 1979 SC 447 [Para 13]
AIR 1989 SC 364 [Para 14]
AIR 1987 SC 1472 [Para 15]
AIR 1988 SC 208 [Para 15]
AIR 1986 SC 1072 [Para 15]
W. P. No. (CRL) 602 of 1989 (SC) [Para 15]
Cr. W. P. No. 842 of 1981 Dt/- 10-7-1981 (Bom) [Para 15]
AIR 1986 SC 687 [Para 15]
AIR 1994 SC 2179 [Para 16]
AIR 1988 SC 723 [Para 17]
Cr. Appeal No.115 of 1986 Dt./- 5-2-1986 (S.C.) [Para 220]
Cr. W. P. No. 746 of 1984 Dt/- 15-4-1985 (Bom) [Para 20]
AIR 1990 SC 176 [Para 20]
W. P. No. 1022 of 1995 Dt/- 28-6-1996, 2 & 3-7-1996 (Bom) [Para 21]
1996(2) ALL MR 551 [Para 21]

JUDGMENT

DESHMUKH, J. :- The petitioner, Smt. Sharifa Abubaker Zariwala, has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 26th of June 1995 issued by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India under the provisions of Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for the sake of brevity) preventively detaining Shri Abubaker Mohammed Zariwala @ Babu Kasam @ Chacha, who is the husband of the petitioner. A copy of the impugned order dated 26th June 1995 is at Annexure 'A' to the petition. The order of detention at Annexure 'A' is accompanied by the grounds of detention bearing the same date, namely, 26th June 1995, and a copy of it is at Annexure 'B' to the petition.

2. In the grounds of detention at Annexure 'B' it is stated that in pursuance of a specific information that one passenger whose name was given as Zubair shall be travelling on PIA Flight no.PK-277 to Karachi on 3.6.1995, carrying with him huge quantity of Indian and foreign currency, and that he was to be dropped at the Bombay Airport (NIPT, Sahar International Airport) by Abubaker Mohammed Zariwala (hereinafter referred to as "the detenu") in a blue coloured Fiat car No.MH-01-B-5079, the Officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Zonal Unit, Bombay, located the said passenger Zubair @ Sajid while he was standing in the queue of the PIA check-in counter. On enquiry being made, the said Zubair @ Sajid disclosed that his full name is Zuber Mohammed Iqbal and that he was in fact carrying huge amount of Indian as well as foreign currency for delivery to a person at Dubai. He further stated that though he had a confirmed ticket of 6th June 1995, he was still taking a chance for getting a seat on the flight of 3rd June 1995. He further stated that he had been assured by the detenu that a confirmed seat would be made available to him on that day. It is further stated in the grounds that the said Sajid disclosed that the detenu was his associate and also pointed out the detenu who at that time was in the visitors lounge at the Airport, Module-I. The detenu was also apprehended and questioned. The detenu gave his name as Babu Kasam @ Babubhai and accepted that he had come to drop the said Sajid and that he had given to the said Sajid huge quantity of Indian and foreign currency for delivery at Dubai. The baggage of the said Sajid was examined in the Airport Building. It contained two poly bags and one brown coloured zipper bag. The baggage was checked in the presence of panchas, the detenu and the said Sajid. One poly bag contained only clothes of the said Sajid and therefore was returned to him. The second poly bag contained assorted packets of soaps, Rasna Soft Drink Concentrate, zarda pouch, etc. On opening the packets, barring a few genuine packets which contained the declared products, all other packets contained Indian as well as foreign currency neatly concealed so as to appear as a packet of soap or Rasna concentrate and the like. A total of Indian currency of Rs. 7,22,000/- and foreign currency equivalent to Indian Rs.21,07,560.70 were recovered of which a panchnama was drawn. On examination of the brown coloured zipper bag, it was found to contain similar packets from which Indian currency of Rs.26,28,000/- and foreign currency equivalent to Indian Rs.35,78,050.25 were recovered of which a panchanama was drawn. The grounds further reveal that the said Sajid was thereafter questioned and he was not in possession of any legal documents permitting him to carry the said currency out of India and therefore the Indian currency as well as the foreign currency, totally amounting to Rs.90,35,610.95, were seized and a panchanama was drawn. The packing material and the camouflaging material were also seized. On the persons of the said Sajid and the detenu being searched, certain visiting cards and other documents were recovered which indicated that they had a link with the smuggling and therefore they were also seized. The blue coloured fiat car having registration No.MH-01-B-5079 was also seized. It is further stated that the detenu and the said Sajid were then escorted to the DRI office at Colaba along with the seized goods and the car and the panchas. During the course of investigation, the authorities also searched certain premises, namely, the residential premises of the said Sajid where nothing incriminating was found. The residential premises of the detenu were searched where 15 Pears, Le Sancy Soaps were recovered without their outer covers. These articles were seized under the provisions of the Customs Act under the reasonable belief that the outer covers of these soaps were used for packing, concealing and camouflaging the Indian and foreign currency seized from the said Sajid.The shop premises of M/s Abhrani Trading Corporation were also searched and some documents were recovered. The residential premises of one Khalil Mohammed Abhrani were also searched from where some documents were seized. The hotel premises of Hotel Sukoon, 1st floor, were also searched but nothing incriminating was found there. Similarly at the hotel premises situated at Jilani Guest House, inspite of search, nothing incriminating was found. The grounds further reveal that during the course of interrogation the said Sajid and the detenu were questioned independently and their statements were recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act. It is further stated in the grounds that in his statement the said Sajid stated that he possessed two passports in two different names and that he was working as a carrier, earlier for one Abbas based at Dubai and that now since the last 5 to 6 months he has been working as a carrier for the detenu. He stated that he had been carrying imitation jewellery from Bombay to Pakistan. He further stated that every time he used to get a ticket for flight from Bombay to Dubai via Karachi. He further stated that there is a transit period of 6 to 7 hours at Karachi during which Dubai bound passengers are taken to a hotel in an Airlines bus and on the way, the said Sajid, according to his statement, used to give the packets of imitation jewellery to the driver of the bus one Shri Kadir and that while returning to the airport, this driver paid him the sale proceeds and also gave him other goods mainly chewing pan for carrying it to Dubai.He also stated that he had been working for the detenu and was getting Rs.1,500/- as his remuneration for each trip. He further stated that the detenu had been sending him almost every month. He stated that on three previous occasions he had carried foreign currency and had delivered it at Federal Exchange at Dubai to a person whose name is Hanif. He further stated that the detenu this time had asked him to deliver the currency to one Karim at Karachi Airport. He stated that on all the occasions the currency had been given by one Khalil Abhrani @ Khalilbhai to the detenu which was given to Sajid by the detenu to carry it further to the foreign country. It is then stated in the grounds that a further statement of the said Sajid was recorded on 14.6.1995 under Section 108 of the Customs Act, wherein he stated that in one of his previous visits to Dubai he had carried Indian and foreign currency as per the details of the chit shown to him and that the chit shows 71 items of different varieties of packing in which currency was smuggled out of India. He further volunteered and showed the shop premises belonging to Shri Khalil Abhrani @ Khalilbhai.

3. In the grounds it is further stated that in the statement of the detenu recorded on 4/5.6.1995 under Section 108 of the Customs Act, the detenu stated that he is in the trade of smuggling since 1988 and that in the beginning he used to buy and sell foreign goods brought by the carriers and that he came in contact with Khalil Abhrani who offered him Rs.1,000/- for Rs. 1,00,000/- of Indian currency or Indian equivalent of foreign currency for sending carriers with currency abroad and that Sajid is his trusted carrier. He further stated that Sajid was used by him on previous three occasions for carrying Indian and foreign currency abroad and that the foreign currency was delivered at Federal Exchange at Dubai and that this time the currency was to be delivered at Karachi to one Karim. The detenu also disclosed the phone number of the said Karim at Karachi. He further stated that the currency was given to him by the said Khalil Abhrani and was packed by the detenu at his house and that he brought Sajid to the airport in his blue coloured fiat car for going to Karachi. In the grounds it is further stated that the statement of the detenu was again recorded on 14.6.1995 under Section 108 of the Customs Act wherein the detenu stated that the currency that has been seized was delivered on 3 occasions by the said Abhrani to the detenu. The detenu further stated that a chit was given to him by the said Abhrani, which was shown to the detenu, and that the said Abhrani had told the detenu to pack the currency in the manner shown in the chit. It is further stated that the detenu volunteered and showed the shop premises of the said Khalil Abhrani. The grounds also refer to a further statement of the detenu recorded on 19.6.1995.

4. In the grounds it is further stated that the statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act of Shri Mohammed Iqbal Fajju Boxwala was recorded on 16.6.1995. This Mohammed Iqbal Fajju Boxwala is the father of the above referred Sajid. In his statement the father of the said Sajid stated that his son Sajid was involved in smuggling activities and that he was arrested twice by the local police for his criminal activities. He also identified the photograph of the detenu and said that the detenu along with his son Sajid had been engaged in smuggling activities and that his son Sajid was visiting Dubai in connection with smuggling activities.

5. The grounds further reveal that the detenu had applied for bail before the C.M.M., Esplanade Court, Bombay, which was initially declined. However, it was granted on 23.6.1995. It is further stated in the grounds that the said Sajid was granted bail with certain conditions by the Court on 16.6.1995. It is also stated in the grounds that the detenu filed his retraction application on 6.6.1995 and that the Department had filed rebuttal reply on 12.6.1995. The Detaining Authority, in the grounds, finally states that from the documents placed before him, it is evident that the detenu has been engaging in the smuggling of Indian and foreign currency and that unless prevented, he will continue to indulge in such activities. It is further stated that the Detaining Authority is aware that the detenu has been granted bail and that he will continue to indulge in future in the smuggling activities unless prevented. The Detaining Authority, therefore, concluded that it was necessary to preventively detain the detenu. Pursuant to the detention order at Annexure 'A' to the petition, the detenu was placed under detention. The representation made by the detenu to the Detaining Authority was rejected on 28.8.1995 and the detention order was confirmed by the Central Government by order dated 25.9.1995. By the confirmation order, at Annexure 'K' to the petition, dated 25.9.1995, the detention period of the detenu was determined as one year with effect from 27.6.1995. Therefore, when the writ petition was taken up for final hearing though the detenu was in custody, while the hearing of the petition continued, he was released from detention. However, proceedings under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the SAFEMA") have been initiated on the basis of the detention order and therefore it became necessary for us to continue with the hearing of the petition. Thus, though the detenu is not presently in custody and the period of his detention is over, the validity or otherwise of the detention order is to be examined in view of the proceedings initiated on the basis of the order under the SAFEMA.

6. At the final hearing of the petition, a total number of 12 grounds were raised impugning the detention order. The first ground that was urged on behalf of the petitioner is that the order releasing the detenu on bail was passed by the Court on 23.6.1995. 24th June 1995 was a Saturday and 25th June 1995 was a Sunday and therefore holidays. The order of detention has been passed by the detaining authority on 26.6.1995. The order of detention shows that the detaining authority has considered the order of the Court releasing the detenu on bail, dated 23.6.1995, and a copy of that order is also sent with the detention order. Therefore, in the submission of the petitioner, in such a short time, the detaining authority could not have considered the entire material himself and could not have formulated the grounds himself and therefore the order suffers from non-application of mind. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents Nos.1 and 2, namely, the Union of India and the detaining authority, it is stated that after seizure of the material on 3.6.1995, the other necessary material was collected and the matter was placed before the Screening Committee. After the Screening committee cleared the proposal, it was forwarded to the detaining authority. It is further stated that looking to the sensitivity of the matter and grave urgency, expeditious steps came to be taken in the matter of issuing the detention order. It is further stated that considering the gravity and exigency and the seriousness of the matter and the manner in which the detenu came out on bail and looking to the magnitude of the activities, each and every step was taken with utmost expedition with the assistance of the Delhi officials of the DRI as well as the officials of the Department of Revenue, Ministry of finance. Perusal of the list of documents that were taken into consideration by the detaining authority while passing the detention order, at Annexure 'C' to the petition, reveals that all the documents, except the bail order, are dated 19.6.1995 and period before it. Out of the documents which have been considered by the detaining authority, it is only the order granting bail to the detenu which came into existence after 19.6.1995. In support of this contention, on behalf of the petitioner, reliance was placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.678 of 1985 (Umesh Chandra Verma v. Union of India and another) decided on 20.12.1985. In that case, the detenu was apprehended on 12.6.1985. He was interrogated on 13.6.1985 almost the whole day and thereafter at 6.00 p.m. he was formally arrested under Section 104 of the Customs Act and on the same night the detention order was made by the Joint Secretary. In this situation, it was urged before the Supreme Court that having regard to the fact that the documents on which the detention order is based runs into 234 pages and the arrest memo is dated 13.6.1985 and gives the time at 6.00 p.m., there was no time at the disposal of the detaining authority to go through 234 pages and to make the detention order on the same day. This contention has been accepted by the Supreme Court especially in view of the fact that the detenu was apprehended on 12.6.1985 his interrogation was going on through the whole day on 13.6.1985 and he was arrested at 6.00 p.m. on 13.6.1985 and on the same day the detention order was made. In these peculiar circumstances, the Supreme Court held that the order of detention suffers from non-application of mind as the detaining authority could not have gone through the entire material on the same day after 6.00 p.m. Thus the facts of that case are wholly dissimilar to the facts at hand.

7. On behalf of the petitioner, reliance was also placed on the judgment of this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No.397 of 1992 (Mohammed Ahmed Ibrahim v. Mahendra Prasad and others) decided on 22nd April 1992. In that case, the sponsoring authority from Bombay sent the papers which came into existence on the same day, namely 9th April, 1991, to Delhi and on the same day, the detaining authority made the detention order. Perusal of the judgment further reveals that the documents at Serial No.29, which was relied on by the detaining authority, is dated 9th April 1991. In that case, this Court found that the proposal for detention was received from the sponsoring authority on 9.4.1991 and it consisted of 262 documents and the order of detention was made on the same day, namely 9.4.1991. This Court, therefore, in these circumstances, came to the conclusion that it was impossible for the detaining authority to go through the 262 documents and to apply its mind to the contents of those documents and to pass the detention order on the same day and therefore this Court came to the conclusion that the order of detention suffered from non-application of mind. However, in para 4 of its judgment, this Court has observed that it does not wish to lay down that particular minimum time is required to be taken by the detaining authority for considering the proposal and making the order of detention after the proposal is received. It has been held that the detaining authority has to consider the proposal and the documents without any unjustifiable delay but it has a duty to consider the material placed before it by proper application of mind. In the present case, however, only one document has come into existence on 23.6.1995 by the sponsoring authority. Only the bail order was forwarded by the sponsoring authority to the detaining authority on 23.6.1995. Perusal of the bail order, which has been supplied to the detenu, shows that it is a document of hardly 3 pages and therefore it is clear that the ratio of the decision of this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No.397 of 1992 cannot be made applicable to the facts of the case at hand.

8. On behalf of the petitioners reliance was also placed on the judgment of this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No.833 of 1992 (Banwarilal Khetaram Saini v. The Union of India and others) decided on 15.9.1992, Criminal Writ Petition No.991 of 1992 (Smt. Varsha Vilas Jadhav v. The State of Maharashtra & others) decided on 23.10.1992 and Criminal Writ Petition No.425 of 1992 (Sardul Singh v. The Union of India and others) decided on 29.9.1992. Perusal of the judgments in these cases shows that each case has turned on the facts of that particular case where the Court, after going through the record, found that voluminous documents were required to be perused by the detaining authority in a very short time and the Court, after taking into consideration the volume of the documents and the time at the disposal of the detaining authority, came to the conclusion that adequate time was not available to the detaining authority to apply its mind to all the documents that has been placed before it before making the detention order. As indicated above, in the present case however, the facts are that the proposal was already with the detaining authority; only one document came into existence on 23.6.1995, namely bail order, which was immediately supplied to the detaining authority; and after considering that document and other material on record, the detaining authority made the detention order on 26.6.1995. In this regard, our attention has been drawn on behalf of the respondents to a judgment of the Supreme Court in Tarapada De v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1951 Supreme Court 174. Perusal of this judgment shows that the Supreme Court has laid down as a law that the detaining authority has to apply its mind to the suspected activities of the detenu and then record the satisfaction that it is necessary to preventively detain him in order to prevent him from indulging in such activities in future. It is pointed out by the Supreme Court that it is necessary that the detaining authority should scan the documents supplied to it by the sponsoring authority as and when the documents are made available and it has to apply its mind to all the documents placed before it before making the detention order. Our attention has also been invited on behalf of the respondents to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of A.K.Gopalan v. Union of India, AIR 1966 Supreme Court 816. There also the Supreme Court has stated that the detaining authority has to scan the documents placed before it. It is not necessary that the detaining authority has to wait even for scanning the documents till the last document is supplied to it. The detaining authority may go on with the scanning of the documents as and when the documents are placed before it. However, the detaining authority has to apply its mind afresh to all the documents before making the detention order. In the present case, we are satisfied that there is no scope for holding that adequate time was not available to the detaining authority to go through all the documents placed before it. Merely because one document is supplied to the detaining authority on 23.6.1995, it cannot be inferred that the order made by the detaining authority on 26.6.1995 suffers from non-application of mind on the ground that enough time was not available to the detaining authority to apply its mind. Ground No.1 raised on behalf of the petitioner has no substance and therefore has to be rejected.

9. The next ground urged on behalf of the petitioner is that the detaining authority has to apply its mind to the entire material on which the detention order is based at one and the same time and piecemeal recording of the satisfaction is highly illegal. In reply to this ground, the respondents aver that the entire material was considered by the detaining authority at one instance. On behalf of the petitioner, reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 165 of 1986 (Mohammed Afzal Yakub v. The State of Maharashtra and others) with another companion petition, decided on 13.8.1986. Perusal of this judgment shows that the grounds accompanying the detention order themselves disclosed that the grounds were drawn up by the detaining authority on different occasions and therefore this Court held that the order of detention is vitiated on this count. Similarly, in the judgment in Criminal Writ Petition No.193 of 1985 (Smt. Leelaben Rattanchand Jain v. The Union of India and others) decided on 25.9.1985, this Court, from the grounds of detention itself, found that various grounds of detention were formulated by the detaining authority and thereafter additional documents were considered but the grounds were not redrafted. In such peculiar facts, this Court held that the consideration was piecemeal and the order of detention was vitiated. This Court also held that, on consideration of the additional material, the authority ought to have reconsidered the grounds formulated by it. In the present case, however, perusal of the grounds shows that the detaining authority has applied its mind to the material placed before it and has passed the detention order. Ground No.2 urged on behalf of the petitioner has no substance.

10. The third ground urged on behalf of the petitioner is that the detaining authority in quoting the terms and conditions on which the co-detenu Sajid Boxwala was granted bail by the court has committed clear mistake which, according to the petitioner, shows non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. Perusal of the grounds of detention shows that the mistakes that have been pointed out by the petitioner in the grounds of detention in so far as quoting of the terms and conditions on which the co-detenu Sajid was released on bail, are errors of minor nature. The fact that the copy of the operative part of the bail order granting bail in favour of Sajid was supplied to the detenu indicates that by the errors committed in quoting the terms and conditions on which bail was granted to co-detenu Sajid, no prejudice was caused to the detenu. Thus it cannot be said either that the order of detention suffers from non-application of mind on that count or that it has resulted in any prejudice to the detenu. Ground No.3 urged on behalf of the petitioner thus is devoid of any substance.

11. The fourth ground that has been urged on behalf of the petitioner is that along with the detention order only a copy of the operative part of the order granting bail in favour of the co-detenu Sajid has been supplied to the detenu and a full text of the order has not been supplied to the detenu. According to the petitioner, non supply of the full text of the bail order granting bail in favour of the co-detenu vitiates the detention order. It may be pointed out that by the same order by which bail was granted to the co-detenu Sajid, namely the order dated 16.6.1995, bail was refused to the present detenu and subsequent order dated 23.6.1995 by which bail was granted to the detenu had been supplied in full to the detenu. The Supreme court in its judgment in the case of Abdul Sathar Ibrahim Manik v. Union of India, (AIR 1991 Supreme Court 2261) has clearly laid down that though a person is in judicial custody, still an order detaining him preventively can be passed. It is now settled law in view of the judgment in Abdul Sathar's case that in a case where bail is refused to a detenu, it is not necessary for the detaining authority to supply the text of the order of the detenu concerned who has been refused bail. However, when bail is granted in favour of the detenu, full text has to be made available to the detenu and has to be considered by the detaining authority. In so far as the present detenu is concerned, he was refused bail by order dated 16.6.1995. The detaining authority has shown its awareness to this aspect of the matter in the grounds of detention. The detaining authority has also considered the order granting bail to the detenu and a copy of the bail order in full has also been supplied to the detaining authority. Non-supply of complete copy of the bail order granting bail to the co-detenu Sajid therefore, in these circumstances, cannot be said to have resulted in any prejudice to the detenu. Thus, Ground No.4 urged on behalf of the petitioner is devoid of substance.

12. The 5th ground urged on behalf of the petitioner challenging the detention order is that in the grounds of detention, the detaining authority has observed that the detenu had engaged himself in the smuggling activities. According to the petitioner, at best, the order could have been issued detaining the detenu to prevent him from abetting in smuggling activities. Perusal of the grounds of detention shows that the detaining authority on the basis of the statement of the co-detenu Sajid, statement of the detenu and the other material, has come to the conclusion that the activities of the detenu amounted to smuggling. Perusal of Section 2(e) of the Act shows that the term 'smuggling' has to be given the same meaning as in clause (39) of Section 2 of the Customs Act, 1962. Perusal of clause (39) of Section 2 of the Customs Act shows that "smuggling", in relation to any goods, means any act or omission which will render such goods liable to confiscation under Section 111 or Section 113. Perusal of Section 113 of the Customs Act shows that even an attempt to export goods without valid authorisation for doing it would amount to smuggling. The detenu in his statement has stated that it is he who used to hire Sajid Boxwala for carrying foreign currency and Indian currency from India to foreign countries. It is the detenu himself who used to pack the currency to facilitate its transport in the aircraft. Considering the activities of the detenu and the role played by him in the operation, the activities of the detenu cannot be termed as abetting the smuggling and not the smuggling itself. Reference in this connection can usefully be made to the observations of the Supreme Court in paragraph 27 of its judgment in the case of Narendra Purshotam Umrao v. B.B.Gujral, AIR 1979 Supreme Court 420. The Supreme Court in that case has considered the scope of the term 'smuggling' in relation to the provisions of the Act and has held that the term 'smuggling' has wider connotation. Ground No.5 therefore has no substance.

13. Ground No.6 urged on behalf of the petitioner challenging the order of detention is that the detaining authority, in the grounds of detention, has relied on the statement made by co-detenu Sajid. It is further urged that the said Sajid had, on 23.6.1995, retracted his statement. This retraction by Sajid dated 23.6.1995 was neither placed before the detaining authority nor was it considered by it. Reliance placed by the detaining authority on the statement of the said Sajid, in the order detaining the present detenu without reference to the retraction filed by the said co-detenu Sajid, according to the petitioner, vitiates the detention order. It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that the retraction of the said Sajid is dated 23.6.1995. The sponsoring authority has placed before the detaining authority the bail order made in favour of the present detenu on the same day, i.e. 23.6.1995. However, the sponsoring authority has not placed the retraction statement submitted by the said Sajid on the same date, i.e. 23.6.1995. On behalf of the petitioner, it is urged that it is an admitted position that the retraction of the statements by Sajid filed on 23.6.1995 was neither placed before the detaining authority nor was it considered by the detaining authority. It is further urged that the retraction of the statements was a vital document and non-consideration of that document vitiates the satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority. It is urged that as the satisfaction to be recorded by the detaining authority is subjective satisfaction, the Court cannot go into the nature of the document and determine whether it would have made any difference to the ultimate satisfaction reached by the detaining authority had the document been placed before the detaining authority. In support of this contention, on behalf of the petitioner, reliance was placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ashadevi v. K. Shivraj, AIR 1979 Supreme court 447. In that case, three vital facts, namely (i) that during interrogation in spite of request neither the presence nor the consultation of the Advocates was permitted; (ii) that in spite of intimation to the Advocate in that behalf the detenu was not produced before the Magistrate at 5.30 p.m. on December 14, 1977; and (iii) that the confessional statements had been squarely retracted by the detenu on December 22, 1977 at the first available opportunity while he was in judicial custody, were not placed before the detaining authority. The Supreme Court ruled that non-consideration of these three aspects vitiates the subjective satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority. Perusal of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ashadevi's case, however, shows that the court nevertheless examined the nature of the 3 facts which were withheld from the detaining authority vis-a-vis the satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority and recorded a finding that these facts were vital for recording subjective satisfaction that it was necessary to preventively detain the person concerned. Perusal of the judgment shows that non-placement of every material does not vitiate the satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority. It is only the non-placement and no-consideration of material which is vital for recording subjective satisfaction which vitiates the satisfaction recorded. Therefore, an enquiry has necessarily to be held by the Court as to whether the material which has been withheld or not placed or not considered is vital from the point of view of recording of the satisfaction. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Ashadevi's case is an authority for the proposition that material that is vital for recording satisfaction, that it is necessary to preventively detain the person concerned, if withheld and not considered by the detaining authority, then it vitiates the satisfaction. It is not an authority for the proposition that the Court cannot consider the nature of the material which is alleged to have been withheld or not considered by the detaining authority to find out whether the material withheld is vital for reaching the subjective satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority or not.

14. The second authority on which reliance has been placed by the petitioner in support of her contention is the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ayya Alias Ayub v. State of U.P., 1989 Supreme Court 364. In its judgment the Supreme Court has observed in para 13 that :-

". . . There would be vitiation of the detention on grounds of non-application of mind if a piece of evidence which was relevant though not binding, had not been considered at all. If a piece of evidence which might reasonably have affected the decision whether or not to pass an order of detention is excluded from consideration, there would be a failure of application of mind which, in turn, vitiates the detention."

Thus, it is clear from the above-quoted observations of the Supreme Court in its judgment in Ayya's case that the Supreme Court has reiterated the law laid down by it in Ashadevi's case. It is clear from these observations that before holding that non placement of the material vitiates the detention order, the Court has to record a finding whether the material withheld was relevant and vital or not.

15. The third judgment of the Supreme Court on which the petitioner has placed reliance in this regard is the judgment in the case of Union of India v. Manoharlal Narang, AIR 1987 Supreme Court, 1472. Perusal of this judgment also shows that the Supreme Court has in this case followed its judgment in Ashadevi's case referred to above and reiterated the law laid down by it in Ashadevi's case. Similar is the case with the judgment of the Supreme Court relied on by the petitioner in the case of State of U.P. v. Kamal Kishore Saini, AIR 1988 Supreme Court 208 and the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sita Ram v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1986 Supreme Court 1072. The Supreme Court has followed the law laid down by it in Ayya @ Ayub's case (Supra) in its unreported judgment in Writ Petition No.(CRL) 602 of 1989 (Mohd. Towfeek Mohd. Mulaffar v. The Additional Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu & another) which was relied on by the petitioner. In so far as the judgment of this court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 842 of 1981 (Smt. Ramila Kirtikumar Shah v. the State of Maharashtra & others) decided on 10th July 1981 is concerned, there also this Court relied on the observations of the Supreme Court in its judgment in Ashadevi's case and held that if the material relevant for forming subjective satisfaction is withheld from the detaining authority, the satisfaction recorded by it is vitiated. It thus becomes clear from all the judgments of the Supreme Court relied on by the petitioner that in all the judgments an area has been carved out for an enquiry by the Court in each case to find out as to whether the material that has been withheld from the detaining authority and not considered by the detaining authority is vital and material for recording the subjective satisfaction. Our attention is invited on behalf of the respondents to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Prakash Chandra v. Commissioner & Secretary, Govt. of Kerala, AIR 1986 Supreme Court 687. The observations of the Supreme Court in paragraph 77 of its judgement show that it is the duty of the Court to make an enquiry into the nature of the material which has not been considered by the detaining authority and as to whether that material was relevant and vital for recording the satisfaction by the detaining authority. On behalf of the respondents, it is urged that the retraction of the said Sajid is totally ineffective, insignificant and inconsequential. In so far as the satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority is concerned, it is urged that the statements which have been referred to in the grounds of detention are dated 4/5.6.1995 recorded while the said Sajid was in the custody of the Revenue authorities and the statement dated 14.6.1995 recorded when the said Sajid was in judicial custody. It may be pointed out here that the said Sajid was remanded to judicial custody on 6.6.1995. Now, from this point of view, it is to be found out what is the nature of the material that, according to the petitioner, has not been considered by the detaining authority, namely, the retraction of statement by Sajid. That statement has been produced before us and is at Annexure 'E' to the petition. The statement has been filed by Sajid in the Magistrate's Court on 23.6.1995 and it is as under :-

" I the accused above named beg to state as under :-

That I was falsely implicated in the above case. I was interrogated on 3.6.95 and was produced before Your Worship on 6.6.95. I was beaten up badly and a statement was extracted from me. The statement is not voluntary and true. My retraction may be taken on record."

It is common ground that the retraction refers to the statement of the said Sajid dated4/5.6.1995 and does not relate to his statement recorded on 14.6.1995. Perusal of the grounds of detention at Annexure 'B' shows that the detaining authority has relied on the statement made by Sajid on 4/5.6.1995 and the statement made by him on 14.6.1995. A copy of the statement of the said Sajid dated 14.6.1995 has been supplied to the detenu and has been placed before us. Perusal of the statement of the said Sajid dated 14.6.1995 made when he was in judicial custody shows that by that statement he has confirmed his earlier statement dated 4/5.6.1995 as true, correct and voluntary statement and has reiterated what he has said in his earlier statement. He has further stated in this statement dated 14.6.1995, which as stated above, was recorded while he was in judicial custody, that he was promised by the detenu and Khalil that they will help him if anything goes wrong; that they have not kept their promise; and therefore he is telling further truth. Now, in this factual background, it is to be considered whether the retraction of the statement by Sajid on 23.6.1995 which, even according to the petitioner, refers to the statement made by Sajid on 4/5.6.1995, can be termed as a material or vital document for reaching the ultimate conclusion that the detenu is required to be preventively detained. In our opinion, the fact that the statement made on 14.6.1995 has not been, admittedly, retracted and that in the statement dated 14.6.1995 the said Sajid confirms his earlier statement renders the retraction by Sajid of his statement recorded on 4/5.6.1995 inconsequential. Even if, because of the retraction, the statement dated 4/5.6.1995 is excluded from consideration, then also his statement dated 14.6.1995 continues to be available and in that statement he reaffirms what he had stated in his earlier statement recorded on 4/5.6.1995. Therefore, in our opinion, the retraction of statement by Sajid is inconsequential and cannot be termed as a document which is vital or material for recording the ultimate subjective satisfaction by the detaining authority.

16. Even assuming that non-placement of the retraction by Sajid before the detaining authority results in exclusion from consideration the statement of Sajid made on 4/5.6.1995, even then in view of the provisions contained in Section 5-A of the Act, we have to consider whether even after exclusion of the statement of Sajid dated 4/5.6.1995, the order can be sustained. In this connection useful reference can be made to the judgment of the constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, to which our attention was invited on behalf of the respondents, in the case of Attorney General of India v. Amratlal Prajivandas, AIR 1994 Supreme Court 2179 where the Supreme Court has considered the scope and impact of the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act. The Court has held that:-

". . . In short, the principle appears to be this : though ordinarily one act may not be held sufficient to sustain an order of detention, one act may sustain an order of detention if the act is an organised activity. The gravity and nature of the act is also relevant. The test is whether the act is such that it gives rise to an inference that the person would continue to indulge in similar prejudicial activity."

It is urged on behalf of the respondents that when an order of detention is issued, it consists of basic facts, secondary facts and the conclusion and even if some material is obliterated or excluded from its consideration, if there is some other material to sustain the order of detention, the same cannot be faulted with. For this proposition, the respondents relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Prakash Chandra's case referred to above. The Court, in paragraph 74 of its judgment in Prakash chandra's case, has observed :-

". . . The same argument was presented in a little different shade namely the fact of retraction should have been considered by the detaining authority and the Court does not know that had that been taken into consideration, what conclusion the detaining authority would have arrived at. This contention cannot be accepted. We are not concerned with the sufficiency of the grounds. We are concerned whether there are relevant materials on which a reasonable belief or conviction could have been entertained by the detaining authority on the grounds mentioned in Section 3(1) of the said Act. Whether other grounds should have been taken into consideration or not is not relevant at the stage of the passing of the detention order. This contention, therefore, cannot be accepted. If that is the position, then in view of S.5A of the Act there was sufficient material to sustain this ground of detention."

In paragraph 76 of the judgment, the Court has further observed :-

". . . These materials were in addition to the statements and confessions made under Section 108 of the Customs Act by the father, the sons and the daughter. So even if the statements made under section 108 by the father, the sons and the daughter are ignored and obliterated, the other facts remain and these are good enough materials to come to the prima facie belief that detention of the detenus was necessary. "

It is thus clear that if the order of detention can be sustained even after excluding the statement dated 4/5.6.1995, then also it cannot be said that the order would be vitiated. It is to be seen that the basic fact for making the order of detention is the statement of the detenu himself that he is a habitual smuggler who has indulged in this activity on a number of occasions in the past. He himself has stated that on 3 previous occasions he had successfully smuggled Indian and foreign currency abroad and that on 3.6.1995 Sajid had been caught red-handed with several currency packets at the airport. Now, the statement made by Sajid on 4/.5.6.1995 is in aid of this fact. But this fact can be sustained from the statement of the detenu himself, the statement of Mohammed Iqbal Fajju Boxwala (father of Sajid), finding of the car of the detenu at the airport and the material seized from the car, the material found during the search of the residential premises of the detenu and the search of the person of the detenu and Sajid on 3.6.1995. If one statement of Sajid made on 4/5.6.1995 is excluded from consideration, it cannot be said that it will impair the satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority. In view of this, we hold that Ground No.6 urged on behalf of the petitioner has no substance.

17. Ground No.7 urged on behalf of the petitioner is that the statement made by the detenu was retracted by him and the detaining authority has shown its awareness about the retraction filed by the detenu. However, the detaining authority has not expressed any reaction or any opinion in relation to the retraction filed by the detenu and therefore it vitiates the detention order. In so far as this ground is concerned, perusal of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat v. Sunil, AIR 1988 Supreme Court 723 would show that it is now well settled that it is not necessary for the detaining authority to express any opinion about the retraction statement. It is sufficient for the detaining authority to show its awareness about the retraction. The seventh ground thus is devoid of substance.

18. The eighth ground urged on behalf of the petitioner is that the detenu had retracted his statement dated 6.6.1995. The department had filed its rebuttal reply to it. The reply did not bear any date. However, the detaining authority in the grounds of detention mentions that the rebuttal reply by the department is dated 12.6.1995. It is the contention of the petitioner that if the reply did not bear any date and the copy of the reply supplied to the detenu did not bear any date, then the detaining authority has not disclosed as to from where it got the information that the reply is dated 12.6.1995. According to the petitioner, a copy of the reply bearing the date 12.6.1995 should have been supplied to the detenu. In the affidavit filed by the detaining authority, it is stated that there was no date mentioned on the reply. Therefore, the detaining authority sought this information about the date of the reply on telephone and the sponsoring authority supplied that information by Fax that the reply is dated 12.6.1995. We do not see any force in this submission. Non-mentioning of the date on the reply or information being sought by the detaining authority from the sponsoring authority as to the date of the reply and mentioning that date in the grounds of detention do not in any way cause any prejudice to the detenu. The eighth ground is thus devoid of any substance.

19. The next ground, i.e. the ninth ground, urged on behalf of the petitioner is that the detaining authority has referred to the statement of Mohammed Iqbal Boxwala, father of the co-detenu Sajid, in the grounds of detention and has observed as follows :-

"Statement dated 16.6.95 under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, of Shri Mohammed Iqbal Fajju Boxwala, father of Shri Sajid Mohd. Iqbal Boxwala alias Zubair Mohd. Iqbal was recorded in which he has inter alia stated that 'Sajid' is his son and he is involved in smuggling activities; that he was arrested twice by local police for his criminal activities; that he also identified your photograph; that you alongwith his son Sajid was visiting Dubai in connection with smuggling activity." (Emphasis supplied.)

It is the contention of the petitioner that perusal of the statement dated 16.6.1995 of the said Mohammed Iqbal Fajju Boxwala shows that he has nowhere in his statement said that his son Sajid was involved in smuggling activities with the detenu and that his son was visiting Dubai in connection with the smuggling activities. According to the petitioner, attributing such statements to Mohammed Iqbal Fajju Boxwala which he had never made indicates non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority and therefore it vitiates the satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority. In reply, the respondents argued that the said Boxwala has stated in his statement that his son used to visit abroad thrice in a month and that he had seen Sajid with the person by name Chacha whom he identified to be the detenu and therefore, according to the respondents, it was clear from the statement of the said Boxwala that his son Sajid was doing illegal activity of smuggling along with the detenu. At the time of hearing, on behalf of the respondents, we were taken through the statement of the said Boxwala recorded on 16.6.1995. In his statement the said Boxwala has stated that in the year 1990/91 his son Sajid desired to get a passport for going abroad and he got the passport in the year 1990/91. He further says that thereafter his son Sajid was doing trips thrice in a month. He further states that Sajid was giving his mother about Rs.1,500/- to Rs.2,000/- in a month. He also says that he had seen his son twice with one old person who was known as Chacha. He says that he had seen Sajid with the said Chacha in the area where he stays. He identified the photograph of the detenu as that of the person named Chacha. He has further said that his son Sajid is doing illegal activities in smuggling and is in the company of bad elements. Therefore, he has not allowed his son to stay in his house. In the submission of the respondents, the sum total of this statement of the said Boxwala is that his son Sajid is engaged in illegal activity of smuggling and that the detenu was in his company. He has said that his son was visiting abroad for these activities. However, he has not said that his son was visiting Dubai in connection with the smuggling activities. According to the respondents, mentioning of 'Dubai' by the detaining authority may be an impact of the statement made by Sajid himself that he was going to Dubai in connection with smuggling activities. After comparing the statements quoted above made in the grounds of detention with the statement of the said Boxwala dated 16.6.1995 it cannot be said that there is any material difference in the total effect of the statement of the said Boxwala and what is attributed to him in the grounds of detention. In any case, a complete copy of the statement made by the said Boxwala has been supplied to the detenu along with the grounds of detention and therefore there is no prejudice caused to the detenu. We do not consider that mentioning of 'Dubai' in the statement of Boxwala in the grounds of detention, when he did not in so many words say so that his son was visiting Dubai in connection with the smuggling activities, is too minor an error to vitiate the ultimate satisfaction reached by the detaining authority. It cannot be said that it amounts to total non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority so as to vitiate the subjective satisfaction reached by the detaining authority. In any case the statement of the said Boxwala is very minor part of the total material placed before the detaining authority which has been taken into consideration by that authority to record its satisfaction that it is necessary to detain the detenu. The statement of the said Boxwala cannot be said to be a vital material for reaching the satisfaction that it is necessary to preventively detain the detenu. This ground is also devoid of any substance.

20. The next ground, i.e. Ground No.10, urged on behalf of the petitioner is that the statement of co-detenu Khalil Abhrani was recorded on 7.8.1995 and the detenu through his advocate had asked for a copy of that statement in order to prepare his brief before the Advisory Board. It is common ground that a copy of that statement was not supplied to the detenu nor was it placed before the Advisory Board. Ground No.12 urged on behalf of the petitioner is connected with this ground. Therefore they are to be considered together. Ground No.12 urged on behalf of the petitioner is that the statement of the co-detenu Abhrani recorded on 7.8.1995 ought to have been placed before the Central Government which is the authority confirming the detention order and non placement of the statement of the said co-detenu Abhranmi before the Central Government vitiates the confirmation order dated 25.9.1995 which is at Annexure 'K' to the petition. It is common ground before us that the statement of the said co-detenu Abhrani recorded on 7.8.1995 was not made available to the detenu in spite of demand and that it was not placed either before the Advisory Board or before the Central Government. It is the case of the respondents that the order of detention has no connection with the statement of the said co-detenu Abhrani. The material on which the order is based also does not have any connection with the statement made by the said Abhrani. According to the respondents, it is only the material which has been relied on by the detaining authority in making the detention order which is to be supplied to the detenu and the material which is inconsequential may not be given to the detenu. In respect of any material which comes into existence after the detention order is made, it is urged on behalf of the respondents that the question of its placement before the Advisory Board and the confirming authority would arise if it is demonstrated or established that it is of such nature that if taken into consideration it would be impossible to reach a satisfaction that it is necessary to detain the person concerned. On behalf of the petitioner, in support of her contention, reliance has been placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.115 of 1986 (Smt. Jayadevi Shantilal Jain v. Union of India & others) decided on 5th of February 1986. In that case the Supreme Court has observed that the Advisory Board had forwarded merely its report to the confirming authority and had not forwarded the entire proceeding which contained the detenu's representation wherein the detenu had retracted his statement made earlier. The supreme Court ruled that all the requisite material which was required to be considered by the confirming authority before confirming the order was not before the confirming authority and therefore the confirmation is vitiated. It is to be seen that in that case what was not placed before the confirming authority was the retraction statement of the detenu himself and therefore it was undoubtedly a vital document in so far as the satisfaction about the necessity of detaining the person concerned preventively. In the present case, the grievance has been made about the non-placement of the statement of the co-detenu. Therefore, the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme court in the case of Smt. Jayadevi Jain's case cannot be said to cover the case of the petitioner. The petitioner next relied on the judgment of this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No.746 of 1984 (Smt.Sarah Mohidden Sony v. The Union of India & others) decided on 15.4.1985. Perusal of this judgment shows that in that case, again, the Advisory Board had forwarded to the Central Government, which was the confirming authority, only its report and the other materials which were before the Advisory Board, namely, the representation and other materials were not forwarded by the Advisory Board to the confirming authority. Therefore, this Court ruled that the confirmation of the detention order was vitiated. Again, in that case the representation was of the detenu himself and the material that was before the Advisory Board was relating to the order of detention of the detenu in that case. The judgment of this Court in Smt. Sarah Sony's case also cannot be said to cover the case of the petitioner before us. In the present case, what has not been placed before the confirming authority is the statement made by a person who has been referred to in the grounds of detention as the person who was supplying foreign currency to the detenu.

11th July 1996.

Perusal of the statement dated 7.8.1995 made by the said co-detenu Abhrani, a copy of which has been filed on record, shows that the said Co-detenu in his statement flatly denies any involvement in smuggling activity. Perusal of the statement reveals that when a photograph of the present detenu Abubaker was shown to him he said that he knows the present detenu since he was housed in the same barrack in the Nasik Central Jail as Abubaker. He also said that he came to know of the present detenu only when he was brought to the Nasik jail on 12.7.1995. Thus, the stand taken by the said co-detenu Abhrani in his statement is that he did not even know the present detenu before he saw him in the jail. He is, as stated above, denying any involvement in any smuggling activity. Now, it is to be seen how such a statement could have helped the present detenu in his defence before the Advisory Board and the Central Government. On behalf of the respondents, in this regard, reliance was placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Madan Lal Anand v. Union of India, AIR 1990 Supreme Court 176. In that case it was the complaint of the detenu that 4 documents were not placed before the detaining authority. The Court, after going into the nature of those documents, found that considering the nature of the allegations against the detenu in that case and the nature of the documents, there was no possibility of those documents influencing the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority in favour of the detenu. It is clear from these observations of the Supreme Court in its judgment in Madan Lal Anand's case that if the documents which had not been placed before the detaining authority are of such nature that they could not have influenced the authority in favour of the detenu, then non-placement of those documents is not fatal to the order of detention or to the order of confirmation of the detention. In the present case, considering the nature of the document in relation to which the complaint has been made by the present detenu, namely, the statement of the co-detenu Abhrani recorded on 7.8.1995, i.e. subsequent to the passing of the detention order against the detenu, it cannot be said that the statement of the co-detenu Abhrani was a document which could have influenced the decision of either the Advisory Board or of the Central Government, which is the confirming authority, in favour of the detenu inasmuch as there is nothing in that statement which could even remotely be said to be in favour of the detenu. Ground Nos.10 and 12 therefore are devoid of any substance.

21. The last ground that is urged on behalf of the petitioner is Ground No.11. It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that the detenu submitted a representation to the Advisory Board as also to the Central Government on 15.7.1995. The representation was rejected by the detaining authority on 9.8.1995 whereas the Central Government rejected the same on 28.8.1995. It is contended that there is inordinate delay in considering the representation of the detenu by the Central Government and therefore the right guaranteed to the detenu by Article 22(5) of the Constitution is violated. In their reply, the respondents have stated that the representation of the detenu dated 15.7.1995 was received in the COFEPOSA Unit of the Ministry on 24.7.1995 and on the same day, namely, 24.7.1995, comments from the sponsoring authority were called for. The sponsoring authority forwarded its comments by letter dated 31.7.1995 which were received in the COFEPOSA Unit on 3.8.1995. The case was thereafter processed and submitted to the Joint Secretary on 7.8.1995. It is also stated that 5th and 6th August 1995 were holidays being Saturday and Sunday. The Joint Secretary, who is the detaining authority, rejected the representation on 8.8.1995. It is further stated that after the detaining authority rejected the representation, the file was put up for further consideration by the Central Government. The file was put up with the comments of the Joint Secretary before the Additional Secretary on 11.8.1995 and the Additional Secretary cleared the file on 14.8.1995 which was then submitted to the Secretary (Revenue) who also cleared the file on the same day and the file was then submitted to the Minister of State (Revenue & Expenditure) for his consideration who cleared the file on 23.8.1995. It is stated that 15th, 18th, 19th and 20th August 1995 were holidays. The representation was rejected by the Finance Minister on 23.8.1995. As 26th and 27th August 1995 were holidays, communication regarding the rejection of the representation by the Central Government was issued on 28.8.1995. The respondents claim that the representation of the detenu was considered expeditiously and promptly by the detaining authority as well as by the Central Govt. and there was no delay at any stage in considering the representation. The respondents thus claim that the provisions of Article 22(5) of the Constitution have been complied with. On behalf of the petitioner, several judgments of this Court as well as the Supreme Court were referred to. Perusal of those judgments shows that each case was decided on the facts of that particular case. The settled position of law appears to be that a representation submitted by the detenu has to be considered by the detaining authority as also the confirming authority expeditiously without any loss of time. We had an occasion to consider the entire law on the subject while hearing Writ Petition No.1022 of 1995 (Smt. Sunita Gopal Rajwani v. Shri. R. H. Mendonca & others) decided on 28th June 1996/2nd and 3rd July 1996 and in our judgment we have referred to all the judgments pointed out to us on the subject. On behalf of the respondents, our attention was invited to the judgment of this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No.86 of 1995 and other companion Writ Petitions (Shobha V. Kawade v. The Union of India and others) decided on 25th/28th August 1995 (Now Reported in 1996(2) ALL MR 551 -ed.). In that case, the detenu had submitted a representation to the detaining authority and the Central Govt., which was the confirming authority, on 17.1.1995. The representation was rejected by the detaining authority on 1.2.1995 and by the Central Govt. on 15.2.1995. In reply on behalf of the respondents in that case it was pointed out that the representation of the detenu was received by the detaining authority on 19.1.1995. Thereafter parawise comments were sought from the sponsoring authority which were received on 24.1.1995 and 25.1.1995. Thereafter, processing the file in the same manner in which it was processed in the present case, order rejecting the representation was made by the detaining authority. The facts of that case are almost identical to the facts of the present case. This Court, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, held that the representation of the detenu was considered with requisite despatch and there was no unreasonable delay. It is thus clear that the procedure which has been adopted by the respondents while considering the representation of the detenu has been approved by this Court in its judgment in Smt. Shobha Kawade's case. As stated above, the facts in Smt.Shobha Kawade's case are almost identical to the facts of this case in so far as the question of decision on the representation of the detenu is concerned. Thus we find that the respondents have considered the representations of the detenu with the required despatch and without any unreasonable delay. This contention of the petitioner thus is also devoid of merits.

22. In the result, therefore, the petition fails and is liable to be dismissed. The rule is discharged.

Petition dismissed.