:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1779 OF 2007 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1779 OF 2007 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1779 OF 2007 Smt. Kirti Sujit Satam ] Age 31, an Indian Inhabitant ] residing at 602/702, Dudhwala ] Tower, Shreyas Colony, Aarey ] Road, Goregaon (East), ] Mumbai 400 067 ]..Petitioner (Wife of the Detenu) versus 1. The State of Maharashtra ] through the Additional Chief ] Secretary to the Government ] of Maharashtra, Home Department ] (Special), Mantralaya, ] Mumbai 400 032 ] 2. Ms. Neela Satyanarayana ] the Principal Secretary to the ] Government of Maharashtra ] Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032 ] 3. The Superintendent of Prison ] Mumbai Central Prison, ] Arthur Road, Mumbai ] 4. The Superintendent of Prison ] Nasik Road Central Prison, ] Nasik Road, Maharashtra ]..Respondents Mrs. A.M.Z. Ansari for the Petitioner. Mr. D. S. Mhaispurkar, APP for the Respondents - State. CORAM : BILAL NAZKI and CORAM : BILAL NAZKI and CORAM : BILAL NAZKI and S. A. BOBDE, JJ. S. A. BOBDE, JJ. S. A. BOBDE, JJ. DATE : 22ND FEBRUARY, 2008. DATE : 22ND FEBRUARY, 2008. DATE : 22ND FEBRUARY, 2008. ORAL ORAL ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : Bilal Nazki, J.) :- JUDGMENT (Per : Bilal Nazki, J.) :- JUDGMENT (Per : Bilal Nazki, J.) :- 1. This writ petition has been filed by the wife of the detenu detained under the provisions of :2: Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, by the order of detention passed by the Detaining Authority on 26.12.2005. It is submitted that the order of detention could not be served on the detenu as he was not available and ultimately he was arrested on 13.8.2007. Counter affidavit has been filed and we have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The grounds of detention, is a very long document and the material on the basis of which the grounds have been framed are 1712 pages comprising of 154 documents. We propose to dispose of this writ petition on a short question and would not go into the grounds of detention, in detail. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the counter affidavit filed by the Detaining Authority. This counter affidavit discloses that the Detaining Authority had twice ordered detention of the detenu before actually she passed the order of detention. Sponsoring Authority made available material to the Detaining Authority on 26.9.2005, it was scrutinised and according to the Detaining Authority at that stage the proposal contained the material with 1498 pages. The Under :3: Secretary considered the proposal and gave his endorsement on 13.10.2005 and file was forwarded to the Deputy Secretary, who gave his endorsement on 21.10.2005, and on 21.10.2005 the file was forwarded to the Detaining Authority who called the discussion with the Sponsoring Authority. A meeting was held on 28.10.2005 and thereafter the proposals went back to the Deputy Secretary and Under Secretary in the normal bureaucratic fashion and again on 31.10.2005 file reached back to the Detaining Authority. She took 8 days to endorse the matter and formulated the grounds of detention, she got the grounds of detention typed, before signing the Order of Detention she received further generated material vide letters dated 31.10.2005 and 28.11.2005. Again same bureaucratic mode was adopted of sending file to the Deputy Secretary, Under Secretary, Detaining Authority and then back and ultimately the Detaining Authority on 16.12.2005 approved the grounds and ordered the detention. On 26.12.2005 the Detaining Authority was again informed that some more material had been received on 22.12.2005. On 26.12.2005 ultimately the detention order was issued. Whatever has been stated in this paragraph is either based on what has been stated in the affidavit of Detaining Authority or from the file. The learned counsel for :4: the petitioner submits that on earlier occasion when twice the Detaining Authority ordered the detention it took more than 15 days to pass an order but when ultimately the Order of Detention was issued, it was done within a day. 4. We have perused the file. On 26.12.2005 the file was placed before the Detaining Authority for the first time then it travelled back and forward and ultimately she signed the Detention Order and Detention Order was also issued on the same day. In the night the police went to arrest the detenu but did not find him at the address given. That report is also on file. There is further assertion in the affidavit filed by the Detaining Authority to the following effect : "I state that I again considered all the documents together including further generated documents and directed to issue the order of detention." The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that it was not physically possible for the Detaining Authority to peruse almost 1712 pages comprising of 154 documents. One could have :5: understood if the Detaining Authority had stated that she was already aware of the facts and also of the grounds of detention drafted by her and she had found further generated documents to be relevant for the purposes of the grounds already framed but she undertook to say that she considered all the documents including further generated documents, which, in our view, was not possible within a short period within which the whole process was completed. 5. In this connection reliance can be placed on the (1) Judgment of Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal Judgment of Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal Judgment of Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 878 of 1985 Umesh Chandra Verma vs. Union of No. 878 of 1985 Umesh Chandra Verma vs. Union of No. 878 of 1985 Umesh Chandra Verma vs. Union of India decided on 20.12.1985 India decided on 20.12.1985 India decided on 20.12.1985, (2) Karnataka High Karnataka High Karnataka High Court judgment in the case of Anwar Abdulla vs. Court judgment in the case of Anwar Abdulla vs. Court judgment in the case of Anwar Abdulla vs. Union of India [1992 Cri.L.J. 3614 Union of India [1992 Cri.L.J. 3614 Union of India [1992 Cri.L.J. 3614], and (3) Judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Vashdev Adnani vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [ Vashdev Adnani vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [ Vashdev Adnani vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [ (2006)1 SCC (Cri.) 61]. (2006)1 SCC (Cri.) 61]. (2006)1 SCC (Cri.) 61]. In the light of these judgments, we feel that this is a case of non application of mind. However, the learned APP has drawn our attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sheetal Manoj Gore vs. State Sheetal Manoj Gore vs. State Sheetal Manoj Gore vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [(2006)7 SCC 560] of Maharashtra & Ors. [(2006)7 SCC 560] of Maharashtra & Ors. [(2006)7 SCC 560]. It was a case in which the plea of non application of mind was advanced on the ground that the officer who :6: passed the Detention Order had been in office for a period of 17 days and in between there were holidays and the working days for the Detaining Authority were reduced to 12 days and according to the counter affidavit the documents ran into about 2000 pages and as such it was not possible for the Detaining Authority to go through the material and apply his mind. Supreme Court rejected this contention on the ground firstly that there was sufficient time for the Detaining Authority to consider the matter and admittedly there were 12 working days and some of the non-working days. It also accepted the contention of the Detaining Authority that the process of passing a Detention Order by Detaining Authority was a continuous process and in that continuous process the material collected and examined by the Detaining Authority was possible within the period which was available to the Detaining Authority. In the present case the Detaining Authority had not even 12 hours to scrutinize about 1712 pages. For these reasons, we quash the order of detention and direct that the detenu Sujit Bapu Satam be released forthwith if not required in any other case. Rule is made absolute accordingly. :7: (BILAL NAZKI, J.) (BILAL NAZKI, J.) (BILAL NAZKI, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.)