D. Anuradha vs Joint Secretary & Anr

The detenue was born in Thanjavur district in Tamilnadu. He completed his Plus Two education in 1981 and later joined the B.E. Course in an Engineering College and completed the same in 1986. His father was a Government Servant working in a Local Administrative Department at Trichy. During 1988-89, the detenue came to Madras and worked as a Trainee in Madras Builders' Office. Later, he entered the field of real estate business and came in contact with others in that business. A firm was formed in 1991 by name M/s. Emerald Promoters Pvt. Ltd. The detenue married the present appellant in 1992. Apart from M/s. Emerald Promoters Pvt. Ltd., the detenue had an interest in some other financial concerns as well. The detenue was also the proprietor of M/s. T.C.V. Engineering Pvt. Ltd. in Madras. In 1995, the Enforcement Directorate received certain information that the detenue was engaged in transactions in violation of the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (hereinafter being referred to as "FERA"). Notices were issued to the detenue under Section 40 of the FERA on 12.7.1995, 15.7.1995, 3.8.1995, 17.10.1995 and 25.10.1995. According to the Enforcement Directorate, the detenue evaded all these notices for about four months and ultimately the detenue was examined and his statements were recorded on various dates starting from 1.11.1995 to 31.1.1996. The Enforcement Directorate alleged that a letter dated 4.8.1994 of the Barclays Bank, Sutton, UK, with a list attached thereto, indicated that 21 cheques involving a total amount of US $ 1,04,93,313 were deposited in the account of M/s. Dipper Investments. Subsequently, some documents were recovered by the Enforcement authorities which revealed that 13 cheques for US $ 62,61,313 favouring M/s. Dipper Investment Ltd., were to be credited in account no. 3001-8937 of the said company in Barclays Bank.

The detenue was questioned on his trips abroad to varied destinations such as Singapore, Hong Kong, London, etc. He was also questioned regarding his financial connection with Nainish Desai and one Ramachandran and also one Mr. Rajoo of Malaysia about depositing one million Singapore Dollars with the company, by name M/s. Adventure Holding Pvt. Ltd., Singapore, so as to make the detenue the Director of that Company in place of one N.C. Rangesh. From the materials collected by the Enforcement Directorate, the detaining authorities came to the conclusion that an order under Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act is to be passed for preventive detention of the detenue.

In the instant appeal before us, the main contention urged by the learned senior Counsel Shri B. Kumar was that the relevant documents were not forwarded to the Advisory Board within a period of five weeks, stipulated under Section 8(b) of the COFEPOSA Act. It was urged that the representation addressed to the Joint Secretary was not placed before the Advisory Board and the same should have been sent to the Advisory Board within a period of five weeks from the date of reference. The reference had been made to the Advisory Board on 22.2.1996 enclosing one set each of the Order of detention along with the grounds of detention and other documents. The first meeting of the Advisory Board was scheduled on 22.3.1996, but the reference was not considered on the said date. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that while making reference to the Advisory Board under Section 8(b), the entire documents were not sent to the Advisory Board. It was pointed out by learned Counsel for the appellant that the detention order was executed on 7.2.1996 and the period of five weeks from the date of execution would expire on 14.3.1996, but all the relevant documents were sent to the Advisory Board only on 23.3.1996. This, according to the appellant, is in gross violation of Section 8 of the COFEPOSA Act.

531. That is a case where the order of detention under Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act was served on the detenue on June 4, 1980 and when the detenue was arrested on May 27, 1980 he was given the grounds of detention. The grounds of detention referred to several documents and statements and the detenue demanded for copies of the documents, statements and other materials. It was only in July 11, 1980 that the copies were supplied but still copies of some other records were not given. There was a delay of one month in the supply of copies of document.

In the instant case, as already noticed, the detenue himself filed two representations and on his behalf, his Counsel submitted another two representations and there is no allegation that these representations were not considered in time. But the representation filed by the present appellant, the wife of the detenue was disposed of only with a delay of 119 days. The delay was caused mainly due to non- availability of the translated copy of the representation. The representation was made in "Tamil" and it is submitted by the Union Government that it took about three months to get a proper translation of the representation and as soon as the translation was received, the authorities took urgent steps and it was disposed of within a short period. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not think that there was inordinate delay in disposing of the representation.

Considering the entire facts, we do not think that in this case the detention is liable to be quashed on the ground that one out of the five representations was not disposed of in time. The delay has been satisfactorily explained and the failure to get the translated copy of the representation was an unavoidable delay. We do emphasise that such delays should be avoided.

In the instant case, the statement of Rangesh did not divulge any details which would have in any way affected the decision of the detaining authority.

The criminal appeal is without any merits and is accordingly dismissed.