K. Narayanan vs Collector Of Customs And Central Excise on 28 March, 1989
14. I have considered the elaborate arguments of the learned counsel for Petitioners in both petitions citing various authorities and the contentions of the learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel. Firstly, I do not think it is necessary to advert to the various decisions cited by the learned counsel for petitioners, since I take the view that the writ petitions are premature. A Division Bench of this Court has considered the aspects raised by the Petitioners in the unreported decision in THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE, MADRAS v. P. MANSOOR MOHAMED ALI JINNAH AND OTHERS (W.A. Nos. 891 to 893 of 1988 dated 11-11-1988) and held that the action taken under the provisions of the COFEPOSA ACT is not punitive in character, but only preventive. As such I am not able to agree with the arguments of the Petitioners' counsel that the provisions of the Customs Act have to be read into the COFEPOSA ACT. The Division Bench has held that regarding the reliance to be placed upon the confessional statements of the Petitioners or others, it is for the petitioners to raise objections if the confessional statements are relied upon by the detaining authority while passing the order of detention, without considering their retraction, only in proceedings arising out of the detention order, and not in the writ petitions. As such, the contention of Mr. Abdul Kareem, the learned counsel for Petitioners that the confessional statements which are retracted now, should not be used for taking any action against the Petitioners in any proceedings has to fail. I am not examining the cases with reference to any proceeding before any Court or any proceeding of adjudication before an authority. Further it is well settled that no finding could be given in the writ proceedings with regard to the admissibility or otherwise of the statements in a Judicial Proceedings before court or in a proceeding for adjudication before an Authority. If any question arises in such proceedings, it is open to the petitioners to raise their objections before the said Court or authority. The Division Bench has further held that if it is proceeding under the COFEPOSA ACT, it is not a judicial proceeding and the detaining authority while passing the order of detention has to subjectively satisfy himself whether there is sufficient material before him for passing such orders and as such the argument of the learned counsel for petitioners with regard to the veracity or reliability of the statements made by certain persons cannot be gone into in these writ petitions. There is no justification on the part of the Petitioners in asking this Court to express its views at this stage with regard to the validity of any detention order passed or may be passed under the COFEPOSA ACT based on the statements recorded under the respective Acts. In my view, it can be done only in the appropriate proceedings as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondents.