Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. A perusal of the records shows that the Directorate of Enforcement had sent proposal for detention of the detenu in five sets along with one set of relied upon documents. This proposal was forwarded vide covering letter dated 02.12.2009. On receipt of the proposal, meeting of the Central Screening Committee was held on 10.12.2009 under the Chairmanship of the Member (Customs). The minutes of the said meeting indicate that after deliberation upon the matter, the Central Screening Committee approved the proposal. Thereafter, note dated 17.12.2009 was prepared by the Under Secretary (COFEPOSA) requesting the Joint Secretary (C), i.e., the detaining authority to "kindly see for further directions". Along with this note, certain documents are also enclosed. However these documents do not include drafts grounds of detention prepared by the Enforcement Directorate. It is on this basis that the learned counsel for the respondent contended that though draft grounds were prepared by the sponsoring authority, perhaps in over- enthusiasm, but those approved grounds were not sent to the detaining authority.

9. One would tend to get such an impression in the first blush. However, a little deeper and further scrutiny of the matter would manifest that those draft grounds were very much available with the detaining authority. We will advert to this aspect a little later. Before that, another important aspect needs to be pointed out at this stage to complete the narration of events.

10. When the matter was put up before the JS(C), i.e., the detaining authority for further directions, she wrote following remarks on the note sheet on 21.12.2009 "please process the proposal". The file shows that with this mandate, the Under Secretary (COFEPOSA) spoke to AD, ED (Enforcement Directorate), Chennai and required him to send some officers‟ conversion of the case "along with material for preparation of GOD (i.e. grounds of detention) and relied upon documents". This is the noting dated 24.12.2009. There are further discussions with the same officer in Chennai by the under Secretary. One officer from Enforcement Directorate, Chennai was deputed as well, who held detailed discussions on various dates for the purpose of preparing the grounds of detention and ultimately grounds of detention were prepared by the Under Secretary. The mater was discussed with the detaining authority on 25.02.2010, who approved the final draft detention order/grounds of detention/relied upon documents. It is on this basis, that the detention order was prepared and signed on 26.02.2010.

This shows that the detention order has been substantially copied from the draft grounds of detention.

2. The fact that the draft grounds of detention were available to the person drafting the detention order is apparent from the similarities between the two documents. The differences are not pertinent since it is the similarities which clearly establish that the draft grounds were placed before the detaining authority (or her subordinates_ who drafted the detention order. Some of the telling similarities which establishes that y the detention order was a cut and paste job is apparent from the following examples.

 The address on the top of 1st page ends the word "Janpath"

in both the documents. Whereas on the 1st page in the address, "Janpath Bhavan" is typed in both the documents, in para 26 of the grounds and para 19 of the Draft grounds it is spelt as "Janpath Bhawan," with „w‟ instead of „v‟.  There are six nos of (*) marks i.e. (******) below the address in both the documents.