AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ramanujulu Naidu, J.
(1) This writ petition is filed for issue of a writ of Habeas Corpus, quashing the order dated 27-9-1989 passed by the first respondent in exercise of the powers conferred upon him u/s 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (as amended), hereinafter called ''the COFEPOSA Act'', directing detention of the detenu in the Central Prison, Hyderabad and setting the detenu at liberty.
(2) On 17-7-1989, the detenu was apprehended by the Officers of the Enforcement Directorate, Hyderabad at the Railway Station, Secunderabad and from his possession, the following foreign currency was seized : $5,430, Pounds 120 of U.S. Dollars; 13,040 Saudi Rials; 110 Omani Rials; and 230 UAE Dirhams. He was immediately interrogated and a statement was recorded from him. According to him (detenu) he was dealing in ready-made garments at Ameerpet, Hyderabad and was employed by one Rasheed to carry foreign currency to Bombay and he was promised a sum of Rs. 2,000/-. He also added that at the request of the said Rasheed he carried twice before the currency notes in April, 1989 and handed those over to one Ahmed of Dadar, Bombay. A case was registered against him. He was arrested on 18-7-1989 and remanded to judicial custody. He was, however, granted bail. On 5-8-1989 he detracted from his statement. The impugned order of detention was however passed against him on 27-9-1989 and he was taken into custody and detained in the Central Prison, Hyderabad on 14-10-1989. On 1-11-1989, a representation on his behalf was sent by speed post to the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi, the address furnished in the grounds of detention for making a representation and the same was received by the addressee on 2-11-1989 as borne out by the postal acknowledgments as also the letter of the Assistant Director of Postal Services, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, placed before us. The representation made on behalf of the detenu remains undisposed of till today. The order of detention was confirmed of the second respondent on 12-12-1989.
(3) In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 it is stated that no representation on behalf of the detenu was received by the concerned authorities.
(4) The averment made in the counter-affidavit is absolutely false in view of the postal acknowledgments and the letter of the Assistant Director of Postal Services, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad referred to Supra. It therefore follows that without disposing of the representation made by the detenu, the second respondent chose to confirm the order of detention, and it is violative of Art. 22(5) of the Constitution of India, resulting in invalidation of the impugned order of detention, as held by us in the judgment rendered in W.P. No. 16526 of 1989 and batch on 8-2-1990.
(5) In the result, the impugned order of detention dated 27-9-1989 passed by the first respondent as confirmed by the second respondent is quashed. The petitioner shall be set at liberty forthwith.
(6) Order accordingly.