Rajeswari Aged 57 Years vs State Of Kerala on 28 January, 2013

[Cites 15, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Rajeswari Aged 57 Years vs State Of Kerala on 28 January, 2013

The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P1 order of detention issued under Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'COFEPOSA Act' for short).

2. Brief facts of the case are that, on 28/10/11, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence received intelligence report about the attempt to smuggle out a consignment of red sanders, an item prohibited for export under the Export-Import Policy framed under the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992, and also a notified item under the Convention of International Trade Endangered Species of Flora and Fauna, through ICTT, Vallarpadam. It is stated that thereupon the officers of the DRI, Cochin conducted surveillance at the gates of ICTT which ultimately led to interception of lorry bearing Regn.No.KL-11 U 3069, carrying a container which arrived at the ICTT. The container was stacked with red sanders logs weighing W.P.(Crl.) No.296/13 : 2 : 13.69 metric tons. The goods along with the container and the lorry were seized under mahazar and summons was issued to Sri.K.P.Sibu and Sri.V.S.Unnikrishnan. Their statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 were recorded. In these statements, it was revealed that attempt to smuggle out red sanders was at the instance of Sri.P.AnilKumar (hereinafter referred to as the detenu). Accordingly Sri.Anilkumar was arrayed as accused No.1 in the case registered and was arrested on 31/10/11. He was released on bail pursuant to Ext.P4 order dated 4/11/11. Subsequently, Ext.P1 order of detention under the provisions of the COFEPOSA Act was issued on 13/2/12 and Sri.Anilkumar was arrested on 9/12/12. He continues in detention and in the meanwhile, his mother has filed this writ petition challenging the detention.

3. When the case was taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner raised three contentions. The first contention raised was that, since the date of occurrence was on 28/10/11, Ext.P1 order of detention passed on 13/2/12 is a delayed one and therefore is an illegal order. The second W.P.(Crl.) No.296/13 : 3 :

contention raised was that though Ext.P1 order of detention was passed on 13/2/12, the detenu was arrested only on 9/12/12.

Hence, according to the counsel, there was inordinate and unexplained delay in the execution of the order vitiating the detention of the detenu.

4. Thirdly, learned counsel contended that detenu was not familiar with Malayalam and this was brought to the notice of the respondents in Ext.P5 retraction statement. In spite of it, the documents supplied to him were in Malayalam which affected his valuable rights of making representations. This also according to the counsel vitiated the order. Learned counsel therefore contended that his valuable rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India stood violated rendering Ext.P1 and further detention illegal and unconstitutional.

5. We shall consider the first and second contentions together. The delay in passing the order and its execution can be fatal provided the delay is unexplained and inordinate. This question has been considered by this Court as also the Apex Court on various occasions and we shall make reference to some of the W.P.(Crl.) No.296/13 : 4 :

judgments that were cited at the bar. The first judgment that was relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner is Abdul Rahman v. State of Kerala (1990 (1) KLT 440), where in para 11 to 13, the delay both regarding passing of the order and in its execution was considered by the Apex Court and it was held thus;

11. The conspectus of the above decisions can be summarised thus. The question whether the prejudicial activities of a person necessitating to pass an order of detention is proximate to the time when the order is made or the live-link between the prejudicial activities and the purpose of detention is snapped depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. No hard and fast rule can be precisely formulated that would be applicable under all circumstances and no exhaustive guidelines can be laid down in that behalf. It follows that the test of proximity is not a rigid or mechanical test by merely counting number of months between the offending acts and the order of detention. However, when there is undue and long delay between the prejudicial activities and the passing of detention order, the Court has to scrutinise whether the detaining authority has satisfactorily examined such a delay and afforded a tenable and reasonable explanation as to why such a delay has occasioned, when called upon to answer and further the Court has to investigate whether the causal connection has been broken in the circumstances of each case.

12. Similarly when there is unsatisfactory and unexplained delay between the date of order of detention and the date of securing the arrest of the detenu, such a delay would throw considerable doubt on the genuineness of the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority leading to a legitimate inference that the detaining authority was not really and genuinely W.P.(Crl.) No.296/13 : 5 :

satisfied as regards the necessity for detaining the detenu with a view to preventing him from acting in a prejudicial manner.

13. In the light of the above proposition of law, we shall now examine the first contention which has been raised for the first time before this Court. From the reading of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent, it is seen that the detaining authority has attempted to explain the laxity that has occasioned in passing the impugned order, but miserably failed in explaining the delay of three months in securing the arrest of the detenu from the date of the passing of the order, and keeps stunned silence on that score. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent when queried by this Court whether he could give any reason for this undue delay in arresting the detenu on 18-1-1988 in pursuance of the impugned order of detention made on 7-10-1987, he has frankly admitted that he could not do so - rightly so in our view - in the absence of any explanation in the counter-affidavit. The Superintendent of Police, Malappuram to whom the detention order was forwarded for execution has not filed any supporting affidavit explaining the delay in securing the arrest of the detenu. Under these circumstances, we hold that leaving apart the question of delay in passing the order of detention from the date of the seizure of the gold, the fact remains that the detaining authority has failed to explain the long delay in securing the arrest of the detenu after three months from the date of the passing of the detention order and this non-explanation in our view throws a considerable doubt on the genuineness of the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority vitiating the validity of the order of detention.

6. In Mohanan K. v. Sub Inspector of Police (2010(1) KHC 557), the question of delay in execution of an order issued W.P.(Crl.) No.296/13 : 6 :

under Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act was considered and it was held thus;

"We see force in the complaint of the learned counsel for the petitioner. An order of detention is passed in a jurisdiction of suspicion. It is premised on the imperative need to deprive of a person of his most precious right, namely liberty, so that the societal concern are addressed appropriately and a person is kept under detention. Any such order must be executed with the utmost expedition and the State and its machinery must be employed in a manner known to law for attaining that object at the earliest. In this case, we notice that though there is provision contained in Section 6 of the Act to get at persons who are absconding, the report in this regard is made after nearly seven months of the order of detention. Acting on the said report, notification was published in June, 2009 with further delay. All this is done in a case where the detenu was very much available in Courts in the very same District in respect of cases which are referred to in the order of detention. We have already referred to the disturbing aspect of the three Policemen deputed to nab the detenu coming back empty handed."

7. Subsequently, in the context of the provisions of KAA(P)A, in Abidha Beevi v. State of Kerala (2013(1) KHC

308), following the Apex Court judgment in Abdul Rahman's case (supra), the Division Bench of this Court held thus;

"The maximum period of detention under KAA(P)A shall not exceed six months from the date of detention as determined under Section 12. KAA(P)A is intended to effectively preventing and controlling anti-social activities in the State of Kerala. Therefore, the detaining authority is passing a detention order exercising his powers under Section 3 of KAA(P)A for the purpose of preventing a known W.P.(Crl.) No.296/13 : 7 :

goonda or known rowdy from committing any anti-social activities. This is for protecting the members of the general public from such anti-social activities. The Legislature thought it proper to fix the maximum period of detention under KAA(P)A as six months. In the case on hand, the last alleged anti-social hyperactivities occurred on 6/2/2012. But, the 2nd respondent has passed Ext.P1 detention order only on 23/6/2012. When the maximum period for which a person can be detained is determined to be six months, a delay of more than 4= months in passing the detention order after the last anti-social activity can only be considered as an inordinate delay. Here, no explanation has been given for the delay either in Ext.P1 detention order or in the counter-affidavits filed by the respondents 1 and 2. Therefore, the inordinate and unexplained delay occurred in this case is fatal in nature and hence, it vitiates the detention order. Such a delay, definitely, cast doubt on the genuineness of the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. Such delayed order cannot be considered as one passed for protecting the members of the general public from the anti-social activities as claimed by the second respondent in Ext.P1. Therefore, the detention order is liable to be quashed for this reason as well."

8. It is evident from the principles laid down by this Court and also the Apex Court that irrespective of the length of the delay in passing the order or in executing the same, if the authorities have satisfactorily explained the delay, the validity of the order of detention will not be affected. In so far as this case is concerned, a detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent. In para 9 of the counter affidavit, the 1st respondent W.P.(Crl.) No.296/13 : 8 :

has stated thus about the time that was taken for passing the order of detention;

"On receipt of the proposal on 15.12.2011 the entire documents containing 327 pages were examined in detail and the file was placed before the Home Secretary, the detaining authority on 20/01/2012 for convening the COFEPOSA Screening Committee Meeting. The detaining authority went through the entire materials related to the issue and applied its mind on the material available, statement given by the detenue and possible implications of law. Then the detaining authority ordered to convene the Screening Committee Meeting on 01/02/2012. Then the detaining authority placed the proposal before the screening committee constituted for the purpose of examining whether the proposal submitted by the Sponsoring Authority merits consideration for invoking the relevant provisions of the COFEPOSA Act, 1974. The screening committee held on 01/2/12 considered and appraised the case of Shri.K.P.Sibu, Shri.V.S.Unnikrishnan & Shri.P.Anilkumar and opined that this is a fit case for the issuance of the detention orders in respect of Shri.K.P.Sibu under section 3(1)(i) and Shri.P.Anilkumar and Shri.V.S.Unnikrishnan under section 3(1)(ii) of the COFEPOSA Act 1974 and the entire file was placed before the Detaining Authority for its independent consideration. The Detaining Authority examined the case in detail and after arriving at the subjective satisfaction that it was a fit case for detention in respect of Shri.P.Anilkumar u/s.3(1)(ii) of the COFEPOSA Act 1974 issued order detaining the detenue Shri.P.Anilkumar vide order No.101917/ SSA4/ 2011/ Home dated 13.2.2012."

9. Again in para 10, the 1st respondent explained the delay in execution of the order thus;

W.P.(Crl.) No.296/13 : 9 :

"It is respectfully submitted that the Ground B and C of the writ petition is not correct. The order of detention against Shri.P.Anilkumar dated 13.2.2012 could not be executed since he had been absconding or concealing himself. Therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub section (1) of section (7) of the COFEPOSA Act, Government have notified an order dated 2.5.2012 in the official gazette directing the said person to appear before the District Police Chief, Palakkad or the Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore at his office within 30 days from the date of publication of the order. However, the warrantee had not surrendered/appeared before the authority as stipulated in the order. Therefore Government have initiated action under section 7(1)(a) of the Act and a report in writing was made on 31.10.2012 to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Palakkad for applying the provisions of section 82, 83, 84 and 85 (proclamations in respect of persons absconding and attachment of property) of the Criminal Procedure Code. After strenuous and persistent efforts, Shri.P.Anilkumar was arrested on 9.12.2012 from Palakkad."

10. From the above, therefore it is evident that although the date of occurrence in this case was on 28/10/11, the order could be passed only on 13/2/12 and the period that was taken for the same has been explained. Similar is the case with the time that was taken for the execution of the said order by arresting the detenu only on 9/12/12. It is true that learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Ext.P6 photograph, which according to him showed his presence at Alappuzha on 5/12/12. However, we cannot forget the fact that he was arrested immediately W.P.(Crl.) No.296/13 : 10 : thereafter on 9/12/12. It is also his case that he was in the meanwhile involved in Crime No.647/12 of Alappuzha South Police Station in an occurrence on 17/6/12. Even if it is assumed to be true, we cannot expect the respondents to have kept a trace over the detenu all over the State to find fault with them for not nabbing him at Alappuzha on 17/6/12. In any case, as far as this case is concerned, the only question is whether satisfactory explanation has been offered regarding the delay, if any, for arresting the detenu and since such explanation has been offered, there is no reason to hold the detention illegal.

11. The third contention is regarding the non supply of documents in Tamil. Admittedly, the documents given to the detenu were in Malayalam. It is true that if the detenu was not familiar with that language, we should certainly accept his case that his valuable rights under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India stood violated. However, in paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit, 1st respondent has stated thus;

"In the instant case the detenu knows to read and write Malayalam is evident from the fact that the statement dated 31.0.2011 of the detenu, recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, the last portion was W.P.(Crl.) No.296/13 : 11 :

written in Malayalam by the detenu in his own handwriting. Moreover the detenu is a native of Palakkad District in Kerala State where the vernacular language is Malayalam."

12. From the above averment in para 11 of the counter affidavit, it is obvious that the detenu was familiar with Malayalam, he being a native of Palakkad. If that be so, there is no substance in this allegation also.

13. In the result, we are not satisfied that any of the three grounds urged before us deserves acceptance justifying interference with Ext.P1.

Writ petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge Sd/-

P.D.RAJAN, Judge Rp //True Copy// PA TO JUDGE

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court