Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. It is stated that on behalf of the detenu his counsel had sent a representation on 8.7.2002 addressed to the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai, disputing the value of the goods and requested revaluation of the goods. The Customs Department in its reply dated 15.7.2002 stated that the value adopted by the Department was as per the guideline value.

5. A bail petition was filed by the petitioner on 3.7.2002 stating that he was innocent and he had not committed any offence and that the earlier statement made by him was under threat and intimidation and thereby he was retracting the said statement. Counter was filed on 12.7.2002 and bail petition was dismissed on 15.7.2002. Another bail petition was filed in Crl. M.P. No. 195 of 2002 which was also dismissed on 6.8.2002. According to the first respondent, the total CIF value was Rs.7,16,000/- and the market value was Rs.10,74,000/-.

6. Having regard to the aforesaid circumstances, the Detaining Authority was subjectively satisfied about the need to detain the detenu under the COFEPOSA Act, 1974, and impugned order was passed thereon. Hence, the above Habeas Corpus Petition.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner had mainly urged the following two grounds for our consideration:

(i) Even before the detention order was passed, the petitioner had sent a representation on 5.8.2002 and 12.8.2002 and had also filed bail application on 9.8.2002. The said bail petition came to be dismissed subsequently. However, in the order of detention which came to be passed subsequently, there is no reference either to the representations dated 5.8.2002 or 12.8.2002 or to the bail petition filed on behalf of the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that he has raised certain important points in the said representations and the bail petition and the same ought to have been brought to the notice of the Detaining Authority and the failure of the Detaining Authority to consider the same would vitiate the order of detention. The Sponsoring Authority ought to have placed them for consideration by the Detaining Authority before passing the impugned order.

9. In the context of the submission of the petitioner namely, non-consideration of the representation of the petitioner by the Detaining Authority, reliance is placed on judgment of the Supreme Court in AHAMED NASSAR v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU . We have perused the representation dated 8.7.2002 which has been admittedly considered by the Detaining Authority and reference has been made to the same in the Detention Order itself. We have also perused the representation dated 5.8.2002 and 12.8.2002 as well as bail petition dated 9.8.2002 which is the third bail petition filed by the detenu. We find that in these three documents, the detenu has not raised any new issue which has not been raised by him in his representation dated 8.7.2002. In his representation dated 8.7.2002, the petitioner has dealt with two issues namely, that the confession given by him was secured by threat and coercion and that the valuation by the Customs was exaggerated and that the valuation arrived at by the Customs Department did not reflect the correct valuation. In the representations dated 5.8.2002 and 12.8.2002 as well as bail petition dated 9.8.2002, the detenu has raised the very same issues namely, that the valuation by the Customs was exaggerated and did not represent correct valuation in terms of the Act and Rules. Therefore, we are inclined to hold that no prejudice is caused to the petitioner. The judgment relied on by learned counsel for the petitioner itself would show that it is only when any fresh materials are raised in the later representation they should be duly considered. The following is the extract from paragraph No. 25 of the judgment in AHAMED NASSAR's case, cited supra, which is very much relied on by counsel for the petitioner.

10. The Supreme Court went further to observe that though the issue raised by the detenu might be on merits and that the Detaining Authority might have come to the very same conclusion as the Sponsoring Authority, yet the contents are relevant which could not be withheld by the Sponsoring Authority and that there was an obligation cast on the Sponsoring Authority to place it before the Detaining Authority which had not been done on the facts of the case before the Supreme Court.

11. The portion underlined in the above extract will show that the Supreme Court took into account that as far as the retraction of confession was concerned, the stand of the respondents was accepted, namely, that the issue was dealt with in the bail petition which had been earlier considered by the Detaining Authority. The above circumstance would indicate that the Supreme Court did not feel it necessary that the Detaining Authority should deal with the very same issues which have already been dealt with reference to earlier representations/bail petitions etc. As stated earlier, perusal of the Detention Order would disclose that the issue relating to the alleged exaggerated valuation by the Customs and the retraction had already been raised in the representation dated 8.7.2002 and the said issue has been dealt with by the Customs Department and replied in their letter dated 15.7.2002. The said details are given in the Detention Order itself and the copy of the representation dated 8.7.2002 as well as the reply of the Department dated 15.7.2002 have also been furnished to the petitioner in the booklet.