Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

22. So far as the two instances of 1965 mentioned in para. 5 (a) of the affidavitis-reply are concerned, it would appear that they were too remote in point of time and, therefore, when the detaining authority swears that that undisclosed material did not weigh with him in passing the impugned order, we see no reason to suspect the truth of his version. It is also significant to note that the detaining authority has justified the averments in para. 5 of his affidavit-in-reply as being made in reply to the contention of the petitioner in para. 3 of the petition contending inter alia that the detenue is a law abiding citizen and he has never been convicted for any offence under the Customs Act or the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act or any other allied law and that the detenue was never even arrested or prosecuted for any offence under any law. It is worthwhile to note that the affidavit-in-reply has been drafted for refuting the para-wise allegations which have been made by the petitioner in the petition. Paragraph 5 of the affidavit-in-reply, states at the outset that the contentions therein are with reference to para. 3 of the said petition wherein it is alleged that the petitioner is a law abiding citizen. It is to refute that contention that a reference has been made to the fact that the past record shows that he has been engaged in smuggling activities operating from behind the scene. It is next stated that on account of that past record that the petitioner was detained previously under COFEPOSA during the period from February 6, 1976 till March 22, 1977. In reply to the contention in para. 3 that the petitioner was not arrested or prosecuted, it is stated that the petitioner was not prosecuted is not relevant at all for the purpose of detention proceedings. It is next stated that it is enough if it is established that the petitioner has been involved in smuggling activities and he was therefonefore liable to be detained. This fact itself was enough for detention of the petitioner. It may be mentioned that the further paragraphs in the affidavit-in-reply are replies to the allegations in the petition and these replies are para-wise replies. A perusal of the contention in para. 5 of the affidavit-in-reply read with allegations in para. 3 of the petition, would show that the allegations in para. 5 do appear to have been made to refute the allegations of the petitioner in para, 3 of the petition. We have already shown that the two instances of 1965 are too remote to have any bearing for the impugned detention order.