Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

d) The above Writ Petition was disposed of by an order dated 12.10.2012 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed that before passing any order of preventive detention against the petitioner under the COFEPOSA Act, the comments of the Settlement Commission be obtained. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, thus, found some merit in the limited prayer of the petitioner.

e) Thereafter on 15.1.2013 the petitioner for seeking a favorable recommendation to the Detaining Authoritiy in terms of the said order dated 12.10.2012 and also for seeking immunities from fine, penalty and prosecution under the Act, tendered detailed written submissions during the course of hearing granted by Settlement Commission. Various precedents and statutory provisions were also relied upon to justify that no cause for preventive detention was made out, despite such allegations and it was sought to be justified as to why no detention order was warranted against him despite allegations of being repeated offender.

Applying the same principle, even if I outrightly rejected the challenge at pre execution stage and directed the petitioner to surrender, the petition was required to be considered after surrender of the petitioner as a post detention petition. No right was conferred upon the Detaining Authority to absolve herself from the obligation to satisfy this Court regarding the validity of detention order issued by her.

9. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner demonstrated prima facie case on various grounds mainly the non placement, non consideration and non advertance to the two vital documents namely detailed written submissions dated 15.1.2013 filed by the petitioner during the course of personal hearing before the Settlement Commission and the record of personal hearing held on 15.1.2013 reflecting the contentions of both sides that although there were allegations of the petitioner being a repeated offender, the Sponsoring Authority was not pressing for the prosecution of the petitioner. He also pointed out that the petitioner had paid the entire dues relating to the case which led to the issuance of detention order and the case was finally settled despite issuance of the detention order with grant of immunity from prosecution. It was also pointed out that this immunity from prosecution was liable to be withdrawn if obtained by misrepresentation and that an indemnity bond was also accepted by the Settlement Commission to ensure that the petitioner would not indulge in any prejudicial activity after settlement lest the immunities granted would be liable to be withdrawn. He thus pleaded that effective preventive measures were taken in final settlement of the case.

(vi) Whether the allegation of being repeated offender disentitles the petitioner to raise the contentions of non placement of vital documents or of non consideration of the aspect of prosecution in the matter.

16. I do not find merit in the stand taken by the respondentson any of the above issues. The Bombay High Court had not only expressly kept open all the issues to be raised and decided on merits after execution of the detention order, but had also categorically observed that the findings which they had recorded in the said judgment were in the context of examining the challenge to the detention order at pre execution stage. Since the detention order stands executed as of now, there cannot therefore exist any bar in considering the merits of the grounds of challenge urged by the petitioner even if some were earlier raised in unsuccessful pre detention challenge. The consideration of the grounds urged is only after execution of the detention order. Even otherwise the main ground of non-placement and non-consideration of the said two documents was not raised by the petitioner before the Bombay High Court and thus, there was no reference to these two documents in the entire judgment. The respondents fail to support their contention with any binding precedent where the Courts have refused to consider the challenge of a detenu in a Habeas Corpus Petition after execution of the detention order, merely because some of the grounds were earlier raised without success in any pre execution challenge. The decision of Full Bench in Ram Kumar's case (supra) cited by the learned counsel appearing for the Sponsoring Authority is also not relevant in the present factual scenario. This Court cannot permit the authorities to take shelter of such technical pleas in the matter of a Writ of Habeas Corpus in a preventive detention matter.

"8. ... ... In the present case, a clear case for recommending non issuance of the order of preventive detention of the applicant is made out for the following reasons:-
v) Most significantly, perhaps the revenue, in its report filed before this Hon'ble Commission in the present case, has not opposed the prayer, of the applicant, for immunity, from prosecution and higher fine and penalty are sought to be imposed. Thus it is evident that in view of the approach of the applicant for settlement of the case at once, the Revenue is not proposing recourse to ordinary course of law i.e. Criminal Prosecution, despite allegation of his being repeated offender. In Rekha, (2011) 5 SCC 244 and Munagala Yadamma, (2012) 2 SCC 386, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that preventive detention is not a substitute for prosecution, and further observed to the effect that where prosecution is possible, there is no justification to resort to preventive detention. In the present case, the fact that the Revenue did not oppose the applicant's prayer for immunity from prosecution, goes to indicate that the Revenue has no intention to seek criminal prosecution of the applicant.