During investigation of the said case, the detenu made a companyfessional statement before the Customs Officer but on being produced before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, he retracted therefrom.
Relying on or on the basis of three decisions of this Court in KamleshKumar Ishwardas Patel etc.
c a writ or and or order and or direction in the nature of certiorary companymanding the petitioners, their servants, agents and associates and each one of them to transmit the records relating to the issuance of the order of detention being No.
The husband of the first respondent herein was arrested on 17.6.1995 on the charge of having grossly undervalued imported Floppy Disk Drives whereby customs duty to the extent of Rs.21.53 lakhs was evaded.
The Constitution Bench of this Court in Kamleshkumar Ishwardas Patel supra was dealing with a situation where the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, who was the specially empowered officer to make an order of detention under Section 3 of the COFEPOSA Act, forwarded the representation made to him by the Central Government which was eventually rejected by the latter.
Questioning the validity or otherwise of the said order of detention, the wife of the detenu, the first respondent herein, filed a Criminal Miscellaneous Case before the Calcutta High Court which was marked as Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.
The said order of detention was served on him on 28.8.1995.
F. No.673/89/95 CUS.VIII dated 22.8.95 passed by the petitioner No.2 be number quashed and or set aside.
He was thereafter detained under Section 3 1 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, hereinafter referred to as the COFEPOSA, for the sake of brevity .
The first respondent herein thereafter filed a writ application before the Calcutta High Court for quashing the statement allegedly obtained from her husband by the Customs Officer.
He was granted bail in the aforementioned case.
VIII dated 22.8.1995 to the Honble High Court so that the same may be quashed and or set aside and a companyscionable justice done d a writ of and or order and or direction in the nature of prohibition prohibiting or restraining the petitioners each one of their agents, servants and associates to forbear from giving any effect of further effect to the order of detention being No.
5039 of 1995, inter alia, praying for a a writ of and or order and or direction in the nature of Habeas Corpus calling upon the petitioners and each one of them to forthwith set the detenu at liberty b a writ of and or order and or direction in the nature of Mandamus companymanding the petitioners and each one of them to show cause as to why the order of detention being No.
F.No.673/89/95 Cus.
1995 4 SCC 51, Kubic Darusz vs. Union of India and Others 1990 1 SCC 568 and Smt.
The detenu, made three representations firstly, on 4.9.1995 before the Joint Secretary, COFEPOSA which was rejected on 21.9.1995 the second on 11/12.9.1995 addressed to Shri K.L. Verma, Joint Secretary to the Government of India which upon obtaining the companyments of the Sponsoring Authority was rejected on 9.10.1995 and the third on 14.9.1995, addressed to the Secretary to the Government of India which was rejected by the Finance Minister on 16.10.1995.
vs. Union of India and Others etc.
VIII dated 22.8.1995.
A Division Bench of the High Court in the impugned judgment observed that the first representation made by the Joint Secretary, who is the detaining authority, was number placed before the Central Government and was number companysidered by it at all.
F. No.673/89/95/Cus.
B. SINHA, J Whether representation made by the detenu or on his behalf is required to be companysidered by all the authorities is the sole question involved in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 19.12.1995 passed by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.5039 of 1995.
