Licil Antony vs State Of Kerala & Anr

Shorn of unnecessary details, facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on the allegation that the appellant’s husband Antony Morris, hereinafter referred to as the detenu, intended to export red sanders through International Container Trans-shipment Terminal, was arrested on 17th of November, 2012 by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence and a case was registered against him. He was released on bail by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Ernakulam. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, hereinafter referred to as ‘DRI’, by its letter dated 17th of December, 2012 made recommendation for the detenu’s detention besides two others under Section 3 of the COFEPOSA alleging that they are part of a well- organised gang operating in smuggling of red sanders in India and abroad. The proposals of the DRI, hereinafter referred to as the sponsoring authority, were received in the office of the detaining authority on 21st of December, 2012. The detaining authority after scrutiny and evaluation of the proposals and the documents, decided on 25th of January, 2013 to place the proposals before the screening committee and forwarded the same to it on 1st of February, 2013. The proposals of the detenu’s detention along with two others were considered by the screening committee which concurred with the recommendation of the sponsoring authority. The detaining authority considered the facts and circumstances of the case as also the reports of the sponsoring authority and the screening committee and other materials running over 1000 pages and took decision on 15th of April, 2013 to detain the detenu and two others. Draft grounds for detention in English were approved on 19th of April, 2013 and as one of the detenue was a Tamilian, time till 3rd of May, 2013 was taken for translation of the documents relied on in Malyalam and Tamil and for preparation of sufficient number of copies. Ultimately, with a view to prevent the detenu from engaging in the smuggling of goods, the detaining authority passed order of detention dated 6th of May, 2013. It was served on the detenu on 11th of June, 2013. The grounds of detention dated 8th of May, 2013 were made available to the detenu on 13th of June, 2013. The detenu was produced before the Advisory Board, which found sufficient grounds for his continued detention and, accordingly, the detaining authority issued order dated 24th of August, 2013, and confirmed the order of detention for a period of one year with effect from 11th of June, 2013, the date of detention.

22. The delay caused in this case in issuing the order of detention has not been explained. In fact, no reason in that behalf whatsoever has been assigned at all.” Bearing in mind the principles aforesaid, we proceed to examine the facts of the present case. Prejudicial activity which prompted the sponsoring authority to recommend for detention of the detenu under COFEPOSA had taken place on 17th of November, 2012. The allegation related to export of red sanders through International Container Trans- shipment Terminal. The sponsoring authority took some time to determine whether the prejudicial activity of the detenu justifies detention. During the inquiry it transpired that the detenu and two others were part of a well-organised gang operating in smuggling of red sanders in India and abroad. It is only thereafter that on 17th of December, 2012, the sponsoring authority made recommendation for the detention of the detenu and two others under Section 3 of the COFEPOSA. As the allegation had international ramification, the time taken by the sponsoring authority in making recommendation cannot be said to be inordinate. The proposals of the sponsoring authority were received in the office of the detaining authority on 21st of December, 2012. As detention affects the liberty of a citizen, it has to be scrutinised and evaluated with great care, caution and circumspection. The detaining authority upon such scrutiny and evaluation decided on 25th of January, 2013 to place the proposals before the screening committee and forwarded the same to it on 1st of February, 2013. If one expects care and caution in scrutiny and evaluation of the proposals, the time taken by the detaining authority to place the proposals before the screening committee cannot be said to have been taken after inordinate delay. The meeting of the screening committee took place on 1st of February, 2013 in which the cases of the detenu and the two others were considered. The screening committee concurred with the recommendation of the sponsoring authority. As stated by the respondents in the counter affidavit, the record of the sponsoring authority, the screening committee and other materials consisted of over 1000 pages. As the final call was to be taken by the detaining authority, it was expected to scrutinise, evaluate and analyse all the materials in detail. After the said process, the detaining authority decided on 15th of April, 2013 to detain the detenu and two others. The time taken for coming to the decision has sufficiently been explained. After the decision to detain the detenu and two others was taken, draft grounds were prepared and approved on 19th of April, 2013. As one of the detenue was a Tamilian, the grounds of detention were translated in Malyalam and Tamil which took some time and ultimately sufficient number of copies and the documents relied on were prepared by 3rd of May, 2013. Thereafter, the order of detention was passed on 6th of May, 2013.

11. Similarly when there is unsatisfactory and unexplained delay between the date of order of detention and the date of securing the arrest of the detenu, such a delay would throw considerable doubt on the genuineness of the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority leading to a legitimate inference that the detaining authority was not really and genuinely satisfied as regards the necessity for detaining the detenu with a view to preventing him from acting in a prejudicial manner.”

From the conspectus of what we have observed, we do not find any error in the order of detention and the order passed by the High Court, refusing to quash the same. In the result, we do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed accordingly.