Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(iii) With regard to the argument pertaining to non-consideration of relevant material and/or non-disclosures of relevant material before the detaining authority, it is submitted by the Learned Counsel that several documents which were part of case-records lying before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta and the Adjudicating Authority under the Customs Act were not considered by the detaining authority in formation of his opinion for arriving at a subjective satisfaction about necessity to issue the order of detention, and none of these document (bail order) was placed before the detaining authority by the sponsoring authority. Further it is submitted that the manipulated documents were placed before the detaining authority WPA (H) 39 OF 2021 which will go to show that the relevant material have not been placed before the detaining authority in proper form. The Learned Counsel had referred to a list of 12 documents pertaining to both the cases referred to in the order of detention and submitted that these documents were not disclosed before the detaining authority. Emphasis was laid on the retraction statements of the detenue and that of the other persons who are also charged along with the detenue and it is submitted that the retraction was not considered especially when the retraction was made before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. It is submitted that the detenue had stated that statement was obtained from him by cohesion and if the statement given by the detenue is to be relied on by the authority then the retraction should also have been referred to and relied on. Further the statement which has been referred to in Paragraph M of the Grounds of Detention namely the statement of Subhashis Das alias Sovon has been retracted. Similarly, the statement of Partha Mishra has also been retracted. In paragraph "x" the order of detention the order of the Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate dated 13.12.2018 has been referred to but the detenue which was not supplied with the said documents. The Learned Counsel has referred to the various enclosures to the petition to emphasis the submissions that none of the retractions including that of the detenue were placed before the detaining authority. With regard to the second case which is being referred to as "black pepper case" there is a reference in sub para (e) at Page 8 of the Grounds of Detention to the statement of Dharambir Kumar Mahato which has been retracted before the Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. With regard to the details of the goods alleged to have been diverted as mentioned WPA (H) 39 OF 2021 in sub para (f) at Page 8 of the order of detention, the Learned Counsel has referred to the prisoner's petition which was directed to kept on record by the order of the Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta dated 15.3.2019. Further it is submitted that in sub para (k) in page 9 of the Ground of Detention there is a reference to the Show Cause Notice issued by the Customs Authorities which was adjudicated and there is also reference to the penalty which was imposed on the detenue, but the reply given by the detenue to the Show Cause Notice was not placed before the detaining authority which is a very vital and material document. The Learned Counsel submitted that the bail order which was one of the relied upon documents is a manufactured and concocted document. In this regard, the Learned Counsel has drawn our attention to Pages 380 and 381 of the informal paper book volume 3 and submitted that the document which was placed before the detaining authority is a concocted document. Further it is submitted that the second bail petition of the detenue has not been referred to in the order of detention. Therefore, it is submitted that the order of detention is liable to be quashed on ground of non-consideration of relevant materials and non-disclosure of relevant material before the detaining authority and placing concocted document before the detaining authority. In support of the aforementioned contension the Learned Counsel placed reliance on the decisions in the case of Sita Ram Somani Vs. State of Rajasthan and others (1986) 2 SCC 86, Ahmed Nassar Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others (1999) 8 SCC 473, Union of India Vs. Ranu Bhandari (2008) 17 SCC 348, Ayya Alias Ayub Vs. State of U.P and Another (1989) 1 SCC 374 and Pallavi Vinod Patni Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2001) Cr LJ WPA (H) 39 OF 2021 3197. As mentioned above these decisions were to support the arguments that if materials or vital facts which were in the mind of the detaining authority one way or the other on the question whether or not to make the detention order are not placed before or not considered by the detaining authority it would vitiate its subjective satisfaction rendering the detention order illegal. These decisions have also been relied on for the proposition that all documents irrespective of whether they are against the detenue or in his favour and whether detenue had engaged thereof or not must be furnished to the detenue to enable him to make an effective representation in exercise of his rights under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution.

24. In the result we hold that there exists live link between the alleged incidents referred in the grounds of detention, which are undoubtedly smuggling activities, with regard to the date on which the order of detention was passed the by the detaining authority who has validly recorded satisfaction for issuing the order of detention under section 3(1) of the Act and while doing so he has taken note of the relevant material and antecedent of the detenue and his propensity to commit the same in future and the detenue has not been prejudiced in any manner as relevant documents which formed basis of the order of detention have been supplied. Furthermore, the Learned Counsel had contended that the bail order is a concocted document. This argument deserves to be rejected as we are fully satisfied that the copy of the bail order which has been furnished to the detenue is a typed copy and that has been clearly demonstrated before us by the Learned Additional Solicitor General by producing both the hand written order as well as the typed order. Therefore, such contension also stands rejected.