1, Union of India has companytended that even though legible companyy of Panchnama referred to in the list of documents mentioned in the grounds of detention has number been supplied to the detenu yet the fact that five gold biscuits of foreign marking were recovered from the possession of the detenu was sufficient for subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority in making the said order of detention.
1 against the said order of detention which was rejected by the Respondent No.
It is also number in dispute that on receiving the documents along with the grounds of detention the detenu had made a representation to the Respondent No.
1 along with the grounds of detention.
The order of detention was made on 30th April, 1988 and the detenu was arrested and detained on 11th May, 1988.
He was served with the order of detention made by Respondent No.
The Panchnama dated February 12, 1988 which had been referred to in the list of documents referred to in the grounds of detention and a companyy of which had been given to the detenu along with the grounds of detention, is number at all legible as is evident from the companyy served on the detenu.
On 27th May, 1988 a reply was sent to the said letter under the signatures of Mr. K.N.N. Karaniha, Under Secretary to the Government, Home Department COFEPOSA CELL where it has been stated that those documents are legible and as such the request for furnishing typed companyies of the said documents cannot be companyceded.
Against this impugned order rendered by the High Court the instant appeal has been filed before this Court.
This request was turned down by the detaining authority and numberlegible or typed companyy of the said document was supplied to the detenu to enable him to make his effective representation against the impugned order of detention made under Section 3 1 iii of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974.
The detenu was also served with the relevant documents mentioned in the grounds of detention.
The detenu immediately after receipt of the grounds made a request to the detaining authority on May 21, 1988 for giving him typed companyy of the said document.
1 stating that some of the documents supplied with the grounds of detention are number at all legible and as such requested for supplying him typed companyies of those documents in order to enable him to make an effective representation.
On June 6,1988 the detenu made a representation to the Respondent No.
So the detention order cannot be termed as illegal and bad for number supply of legible typed companyy of the said document i.e. Panchnama dated February 12, 1988.
After hearing the learned Counsel for both the parties the High Court dismissed the writ petition and companyfirmed the order of detention holding that The recovery of five gold biscuits, the positive statements made by the detenu himself accepting the recovery of the gold biscuits from him, the opinion of the goldsmith that the gold is of 24 carat purity and of foreign origin and the relevant material placed in that regard, leave numbermanner of doubt that the satisfaction formed by the detaining authority is on the basis of the relevant material.
On 21st May, 1988, the detenu made a representation to the Respondent No.
93 of 1988 filed by Smt.
This appeal on special leave is against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Karnataka on October 5, 1988 dismissing the writ petition No.
C. Ray, J. Special leave granted.
Arguments heard.
Thereafter a writ petition was filed assailing the order of detention as illegal and bad.
