VIPIN SANGHI, J.
1.These writ petitions have been preferred by two detenues, who stand detained under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of
Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA Act) by the Detaining Authority vide detention orders â€" both dated 03.04.2018, passed under Section
3 of the COFEPOSA Act. Whereas the petitioner in W.P. (Crl.) No. 1270/2018, Dharaneesh Raju Shetty was detained on 14.04.2018, the petitioner
in W.P. (Crl.) No. 1277/2018, Sahil Mohd Zafar was detained on 09.04.2018.      Â
2.The challenge to the detention of these petitioners is premised on a very narrow compass. Undisputedly, the Detaining Authority while detaining
these petitioners supplied the Relied Upon Documents (RUD), out of which the documents at Sl. Nos.12 and 69 â€" in both the cases, are soft copies
of documents contained in Compact Disks (CDs). The document relied upon at Sl. No.12 in the RUD in both the cases are the Whatsapp
conversation taken from the mobile phone of one Sh. Krishan Nayak during recording of his statement on 30.12.2017 under Section 108 of the
Customs Act contained in a CD (described as CD-1). At Sl. No.69 of the RUD, in both the cases, Call Detail Records (CDRs) obtained from
service providers are listed, which are contained in 2 CDs (described as CD-2).Â
3.The submission of the petitioners is that they have merely been provided the soft copies of these documents on CDs, without the relevant hardware
to read the said CDs i.e. either a CD player, or a desktop computer, or a laptop.Â
Consequently, they have not been able to view the contents of the said documents relied upon by the Detaining Authority while passing the detention
orders against them. Resultantly, their right to make effective representations against their detention at the earliest has been denied, which vitiates
their continued detention.
4.Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Smitha Gireesh v. Union of India in W.P.
(Crl.) No. 1060/2016 decided on 02.06.2016 in support of his said submission â€" where this issue was raised and squarely considered by this court.Â
In Smitha Gireesh (supra), some of the documents were supplied on CDs. The detenue in his representation had asked for a CD player to be able to
view/ read the documents. Despite the said request, the CD player was not supplied to the detenue. In these circumstances, this court held that
the non-supply of a CD player along with the CDs to enable the detenue to view/ read the documents contained in the CDs infringed Articles 21 and
22 of the Constitution of India i.e. the right of the detenue to make an effective representation at the earliest, which vitiated the detention.Â
5.The following extracts from the decision in Smitha Gireesh (supra) are pertinent, and have been relied upon by learned counsel:
“57. It is a settled law when clause (5) of Article 22 and subsection 3 of Section 3 of COFEPOSA Act provide that the grounds of detention should
be communicated to the detenue within five or fifteen days, as the case may be, what is meant is that the grounds of detention in their entirety must be
furnished to the detenue. If there are any documents, statements or other material relied upon in the grounds of detention, they must also be
communicated to the detenue, because being incorporated in the grounds of detention, as they form part of the grounds and the grounds furnished to
the detenue cannot be said to be complete without them. It would not therefore be sufficient to communicate to the detenue a bare recital of the
grounds of detention, but copies of the documents, statements and other materials relied upon in the grounds of detention must also be furnished to the
detenue within the prescribed time. The stand of the respondents that they had shown the CDs to the detenu during the course of investigation is not a
proper service as per law. The detaining authority heavily relied upon the CDs in the grounds of detention and thus were duty bound to show the entire
contents of the same to the detenue as a matter of right. The Court cannot lose track of the fact that the detenue was in judicial custody and he could
not have access to any facility for seeing the CDs and cannot be forced to rely on his memory for making an effective representation against the
detention order. The right to make a representation is a right provided in the Constitution. The supply of 12 CDs as relied upon documents are not
disputed by the respondents, but the respondents failed to provide the facility to see the CDs for making an effective representation even before the
meeting of the Advisory Board which was held on 12.02.2016. … … … There is no explanation why the respondents took a different approach
against the request of the present detenue and could not provide a CD player to the detenue to view the CDs which form part of the relied upon
documents.
58.The law is well settled. Article 22(2) of the Constitution provides (1) the detaining authority must, as soon as may be, that is, as soon as practicable
after the detention, communicate to the detenue the grounds on which the order of detention has been made, and (2) the detaining authority must
afford the detenue the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order of detention. Thus, the detenue has a right to receive
documents taken into consideration by the detaining authority while formulating the terms of detention and nonsupply of each and every document
does not provide a ground for setting aside the detention order. The detenue, therefore, has a right to be supplied with material documents, on which
reliance is placed and not a document referred to in the order, which is not relied upon for forming the opinion or made the basis of passing of the
detention order. In case an audio file is heard prior to the passing of the detention order by the detenue is not reason enough to supply the CD or the
player to enable him to hear or know the same. The audio/video files are primary evidence and are documents as defined in Section 3 of the Evidence
Act.†(emphasis supplied)
6.The Division Bench also relied on the judgment of an earlier Division Bench of this Court in Devender Singh Chadha Vs. U.O.I. & Anr., W.P.
(Crl.) No.615/2015 decided on 27.05.2015, wherein the Detaining Authority had relied upon certain audio recordings. Only the transcripts of those
audio recordings were supplied to the detenue, and not copies of the audio recordings themselves. The Division Bench in Devender Singh Chadha
(supra) faulted this lapse on the part of the Detaining Authority. The relevant extract from Devender Singh Chadha (supra), also relied upon in
Smitha Gireesh (supra) reads as follows:
“20.The detaining authority, it has been accepted by the respondents during the arguments, had heard the audio file and also the sample voice
recording. It is therefore contended by the petitioner that contrary to the pleadings, in the counter-affidavit dated 20th April, 2015 and the assertion in
the detention order, the detaining authority, for formation of opinion, had heard the two files to reach and form her conclusion that the detenue was one
of the two persons in the said conversation. It is submitted that the assertion that the audio file and voice sample were not the primary evidence is
wrong and incorrect. The audio files should have been provided.
21.We have referred to the said contentions on behalf of the detenue only to highlight the submission made that failure to supply the audio file of the
conversation, in the facts of the present case, would cause prejudice and mere supply of the free translation was not sufficient for making weighty and
effective representation. We find merit in the said contention in the facts of the present case. The detenue should have been supplied the audio file
No.2 in order to make an effective representation. This was possibly the most patent, crucial and decisive material and evidence against the detenue.
He had the right to meet and challenge this evidence. That right and chance should not have been denied. This would be contrary to equity and law.
The detenue has right to show and support his contention that there was tampering and/or the conversation did not have his voice. He should know
what was heard by the detaining authority, before formulating her opinion. In this context, it was submitted by the petitioner that every recording on
the phone need not have detenue‟s voice. Free translation text would lose its connection with the detenue, in case the detenue was not the person,
who had conversed with Chandan Kumar Jain or if there was interpolation or tampering. We at this stage, note that as per the forensic report voice of
Chandan Kumar Jain is present in the said audio file. The stand and stance of the detenue may be wrong, fallacious and farcical but the detenue has
right to raise contentions and meet the assertions against him by referring to the evidence relied upon. Right to make representation is a precious and
preserved right. Final decision is the conclusion and termination after examination of the representationâ€.Â
(emphasis supplied)
7.After referring to several other decisions, the Division Bench observed in Smitha Gireesh (supra):Â
“65.It has been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court of India that the relied upon documents must be supplied to a detenue. To say that at the
time of recording of the statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act and at the stage when a show cause notice was issued to the detenue,
copies of these CDs were provided to him and simply because the detenue was aware of what was the material which was contained in the CDs
cannot be accepted.Â
66.In the case of Pawanammal v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., reported at (1999) 2 SCC 413, the Supreme Court explained the distinction between
the document, which has been relied upon by a detaining authoring on the grounds of detention in comparison to a document, which may find a mere
reference in the grounds of detention. The Supreme Court also explained that non-supply of a copy of document, relied upon in the grounds of
detention, has to be held to be fatal to continue detention and the detenue does not have to show that any prejudice was caused to him, as non-supply
of such a document and of not being afforded the opportunity of making an effective representation against the order.Â
67.In this case, the CCTV footage contained in the 12 CDs find mention in the grounds of detention.
68.There are reference to CCTV footage in paragraphs 87 to 89 and as many as 29 times in the entire grounds of detention. In effect, it can safely be
said that to form a subjective satisfaction the detaining authority has relied on the CCTV footage, and thus, the CCTV footage in the 12 CDs are held
to be relied upon documents. Merely because the CDs provided to the detenue along with the show cause notice or he was shown the CCTV footage
at the time of recording of the statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, in our view cannot take the place of providing the mechanism for
viewing the CDs in view of the settled law of the land. On this ground as well, in our view, the order of detention is liable to be quashed.â€
8.Learned counsel has drawn our attention to the Grounds of Detention (GOD) to submit that the documents contained in the CDs have been heavily
relied upon by the Detaining Authority while passing the detention orders.Â
9.On the other hand, Mr. Mahajan, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that there is material distinction between the facts of the present
cases, and the facts considered by the Division Bench in Smitha Gireesh (supra). He points out that in Smitha Gireesh (supra), the detenue had
made request for a CD player, which was not acceded to. However, in the present cases, the said requests were acceded to. The present writ
petitions themselves were considered as representations, and the petitioners in both the cases were “shown†the documents on the computer
screen. Mr. Mahajan has also drawn our attention to Section 3(3) of the COFEPOSA Act, which stipulates that for purposes of clause 5 of Article
22 of the Constitution, the communication to a person detained in pursuance of a detention order, of the grounds on which the order has been made,
shall be made as soon as may be after the detention, but ordinarily not later than five days, and in exceptional circumstances and for reasons to be
recorded in writing, not later than fifteen days from the date of detention. He submits that in the present case, the documents on CDs were shown
to the detenues on 28.04.2018 i.e. on the 14th day after the detention of the detenue Dharaneesh Raju (since the detenue was detained on
14.04.2018), and in the case of the detention of detenue Sahil Mohd. Zafar, the same were shown on the 19th day after detention. Â
10.Mr. Mahajan submits that the Detaining Authority has recorded the “exceptional circumstances†due to which the said delay has occurred.Â
He has tendered in court the relevant extract from the file of Detaining Authority in this respect. The said order appear to have been passed by Sh.
Sitaram Kansari, IO, DRI, BZU, wherein he, inter alia, records:
“... ... ...The SIO further stated that, Shri. Dharaneesh Shetty was served with the Grounds of Detention along the Relied Upon Documents
(RUD) on the 14th of April 2018 in the presence of the Additional Senior Jailor, of Arthur Road Jail, which consisted of documents and also CD.Â
The SIO further stated that, Shri. Dharaneesh Shetty in his Writ Petition filed before the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi has conveyed that, he was not
shown the contents of the CD that was handed over to him on the 14th of April 2018, thereby depriving him of his valuable constitutional as well as
statutory right to make an effective and meaningful representation, at the earliest opportunity. The SIO further informed us that, Shri. Dharaneesh
Shetty did not make any specific request with reference to opening and showing the contents of the CD that was handed over as part of the RUD on
14th April 2018. The SIO informed us that, in terms of Sec. 3(3) of the COFEPOSA Act, 1974 the said circumstances have been considered as
exceptional circumstances and therefore wishes to open and show the said CDs today the 28th of April 2018 which is within 15 days from the date of
detention ... ...â€. (emphasis supplied)
11.Mr. Mahajan further submits that the supply of documents as soft copies of CDs is akin to supply of documents which may not be considered
legible by the detenue. He submits that when the detenues made their request, they were provided with legible copies of the same, inasmuch, as, the
documents contained in the CDs were “shown†on a computer screen. He further submits that when the documents were served upon the
detenues, no such objection was raised at that time. Mr. Mahajan, therefore, supports the detention orders and argues that there is no illegality or
unconstitutionality in the detention of the petitioners/ detenues.Â
12.In his rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the obligation of the Detaining Authority to supply the RUDs stems from Article 22
of the Constitution of India, and not from a request or demand made by the detenue. The Detaining Authority was obliged to supply the RUDs on
his own, without waiting for any such request or demand. The RUDs form an integral part of the Grounds of Detention (GOD). Without them
the GOD are incomplete. In this regard, he has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Zakir v. Delhi Administration & Ors.
(1982) 3 SCC 216, wherein the Supreme Court, inter alia, observed:
“2. ... ... In the view that we have taken in a number of decisions starting from Icchu Devi Choraria case [Icchu Devi Choraria v. Union of India,
(1980) 4 SCC 531 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 25 : AIR 1980 SC 1983] to the case of Kamla Kanyalal Khushalani [Kamla Kanyalal Khushalani v. State of
Maharashtra, (1981) 1 SCC 748 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 287 : (1981) 2 SCR 459 : AIR 1981 SC 814.] it is manifest that the question of demanding the
documents is wholly irrelevant because it is the constitutional mandate which requires the detaining authority to give the documents relied on or
referred to in the order of detention pari passu the grounds of detention in order that the detenu may make an effective representation immediately
instead of waiting for the documents to be supplied with. In the instant case, the detenu did make a representation promptly on December 30, 1980 but
was seriously handicapped in making an effective representation because the aforesaid documents which were of vital importance were not supplied
to himâ€. (emphasis supplied)
13.Having heard learned counsels and perused the record, as well as the decisions relied upon by learned counsels, we are of the view that the
detention of the petitioners stand vitiated on account of non supply of either the printed copies/ hard copies of the documents contained in the CDs
enlisted at Sl. Nos.12 and 69 of the RUDs in both these cases, or the non provision of a CD player/ laptop/ Desktop computer to the petitioners, to
enable them to read and peruse the documents contained in the CDs to be able to, firstly, know as to what documents the Detaining Authority has
relied upon and, secondly, to be able to deal with the said incriminating materials in their representations.
14.It is well settled in law that the RUDs are an integral part and parcel of the GOD. The GOD contains the reasons and justification provided by
the Detaining Authority on the basis of which he arrives at his subjective satisfaction regarding the necessity of preventively detaining of the detenue
under Article 22 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 3 of the COFEPOSA Act. It is obligatory on the part of the Detaining Authority to
supply copies of all the RUDs on which the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority is based. This obligation is cast by Article 22(5) of the
Constitution of India, and is also specifically codified in Section 3(3) of the COFEPOSA Act, which reads as follows:
“(3)For the purposes of clause (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution, the communication to a person detained in pursuance of a detention order of
the grounds on which the order has been made shall be made as soon as may be after the detention, but ordinarily not later than five days, and in
exceptional circumstances and for reasons to be recorded in writing not later than fifteen days, from the date of detention.â€
15.The documents which are supplied on CDs, by themselves, are not viewable to the human eye. To read the documents on CDs, it is essential
that the relevant hardware in the form of a CD player, or a laptop computer with the facility of reading the CD, or a Desktop computer with facility of
reading a CD is employed. Without such aids, the person who is delivered the CD would never know as to what is the document, if any, contained
therein. The CD is only a storage medium. To retrieve the documents stored therein, the necessary equipment is essential.Â
16.The submission of Mr. Mahajan that supply of documents on CDs is akin to supply of illegible documents cannot be accepted. It is worse than
supplying documents in a completely foreign language without true translations. It is like supplying documents in a locked trunk without the key to
unlock the trunk. Supply of merely the CD serves no purpose, since the detenue will not be able to view or peruse the same.Â
17.The submission of Mr. Mahajan that the present cases are distinguishable from Smitha Gireesh (supra), because in Smitha Gireesh (supra) the
detenue had specifically asked for a CD reader â€" which was denied to him, whereas in the present case the documents were “shown†on the
computer screen to the detenues by treating their present writ petitions as representations, is misplaced. This is for the reason that it was the
primary obligation of the Detaining Authority to supply the detenues with either the hard copies of the documents contained on CDs, or to provide
them with the aids â€" so as to enable them to view the soft copies of the documents contained on CDs on a screen, on its own without waiting for
any such request or representation. As held by the Supreme Court in Mohd. Zakir (supra), the question of demanding the RUDs is wholly
irrelevant, because it is the constitutional mandate which requires the Detaining Authority to give the documents relied upon or referred to in the order
of detention along with the grounds of detention, in order that the detenu may make an effective representation immediately, instead of waiting for the
documents to be supplied with upon his request. Without the legible copies of the documents contained in the CDs, the service of the GOD on the
detenues was incomplete and ineffective, thereby denying the valuable rights of the detenues to make effective representations at the earliest. Â
18.We additionally find the aforesaid submission to be unsustainable for the reason that even now, apparently, all that has been done is to “showâ€
the documents contained in the CDs to the detenues on the computer screen. They have not been provided with copies of the same even till date,
and they have not been provided with the aids to be able to peruse and read the documents at the time of making their representations. In our view,
it would be too much to expect the detenues to be able to remember the contents of the documents that they may view on the computer screen, and to
be able to effectively make their representations thereafter. Only an exceptional genius may have a photographic memory, and may be able to recall
and remember the contents of documents shown once on the computer screen. The Detaining Authority cannot reasonably expect normal human
beings to be able to do so. The Detaining Authority cannot get away by rendering only lip service to his obligation to supply the copies of all the
RUDs to the detenue. Supply of the RUDs is not an empty formality. It is essential to enable the detenue to make his representation at the
earliest against his detention. Thus, the submission of Mr. Mahajan that, at least, one of the detenues, namely, Dharaneesh Raju Shetty has been
“shown†the documents on the 14th day of his detention is of no avail. Â
19.Even otherwise, reliance placed on Section 3(3) of COFEPOSA Act is misplaced for the reason that the said section itself mandates that the
grounds of detention must be communicated to the detenue soon after the detention “but ordinarily not later than five daysâ€. The use of the
negative language in Section 3(3) itself shows that the Parliament, in ordinary circumstances, did not consider it appropriate to grant more than five
days to the Detaining Authority to serve the GOD and the RUD upon the detenue. However, in exceptional circumstances and for reasons to be
recording in writing, not more than fifteen days from the date of detention, have been provided for the purpose of serving the GOD and the RUD on
the detenue.                        Â
20.The so-called exceptional circumstances sought to be made out by the respondents are non-existent. The circumstance that the detenues
preferred the present writ petitions cannot be considered as to “exceptional circumstanceâ€.Â
The GOD stated that the detenue “have the right to make representation against your detention to the Detaining Authority, to the Central
Government as well as to the Advisory Board. If you wish to avail this right, you should send your representation through the Jail Authorities where
you are detained,
... ...â€.
21.Thus, it was only to be expected that the detenues would agitate their legal rights, either by making their representations or by challenging their
detention, and there is nothing exceptional about it. Â
22.The Detaining Authority (and in this case the order on the file has not even been passed by the Detaining Authority, but by the IO, DRI, BZU)
cannot make a self serving order, and claim that the fact - that the detenues have preferred the present writ petitions, constitutes “exceptional
circumstancesâ€.Â
As to whether or not the circumstances are “exceptional†to justify service of the GOD and/ or RUD within 15 days of detention, would be
determined by the Court, before whom the detention may be assailed.
23.We may also observe that the RUD contained in CDs taken note of herein above have been relied upon extensively in the GOD formulated by the
Detaining Authority. The GOD are more or less identical in both the cases, since they stem out of the same transaction. The GODs repeatedly
refer to the whatsapp messages contained in the CDs, as well as to the CDRs which have been relied upon by the Detaining Authority to establish the
connection between the detenue and others concerned. We may reproduce the relevant extract of some of the GOD, which are identical in both the
petitions:Â
“5. The above said Whats App conversations showed that Shri Dinesh was forwarding various documents like AWB, BL, commercial invoices,
packing slips, authorisation letters pertaining to various IEC‟s and connected documents along with description, weight and value of consignments.Â
The chat conversations also revealed that, Krishna was also receiving details pertaining to IEC certificates, AWB, invoices etc., from you, whose
number (9820076759) has been sorted as „Denesh‟ in his mobile. The chat conversations also revealed that, Shri Dinesh was also forwarding
various documents pertaining to imports of branded sunglasses, ladies/ girls tops etc., pertaining to various other importers. In all there were
around 45IEC codes registered under names of various firms, through which the importer was importing various goods thereby creating a unique
modus operandi to evade payment of customs duty. The list of various importers along with their IE codes is enclosed as Annexure to the statement
of Krishna.† Â
“14. When shown printouts numbered 29 to 31 of the Whats App communication you stated that the messages from 29 to 31 pertain to forwards of
contact numbers. The name saved as Sukal Gand is actually Shukla Gandhar of Khar Market having mobile number 9920988858. The name
saved as Mahesh Chainai is Shri Mahesh of Chennai having mobile number 9566205155. The name saved as Dipak Man is of Khar Market having
mobile number 9664024540. The name saved as Vike Hilrd is of Vicky from Hill Road having mobile number 9987444443. The name saved as
Dipak Khar is of Deepak Chauhan from Khar Market having mobile number 9930129130.Â
Ejaj Khar Pacipic (9867914190), Hemant Rajmame (9819219902) and Narayan New (9920588670) ... ...â€
“43.In order to conduct a detailed study of the modus operandi, the chronological sequence of goods/ documents and to ascertain the major players
involved in this racket, the CDR/ SDR of the all the 16 persons figured during the investigation was called for from various mobile phone operators
vide DRI/BZU/S-IV/ENQ-56/(INT-NIL)/2017/2307 dated 02.01.2018 seeking details of calls made for the last six months i.e. from 06.01.2017 to
31.12.2017 in respect of the mobile phone numbers used by the individuals were made known to the investigating officers vide their respective
statements.â€
44.M/s. Vodafone Mobile Services Limited, vide their letter dated 23.01.2018 had forwarded the Call Data Record‟s (CDR) and attested copies of
the application form submitted by the subscribers at the time of obtaining the mobile connections pertaining to Mobile Nos. 9167847744, 9820056759,
9820065861, 9986088809, 9324832302, 9082106967 and 9619319144. M/s Bharti Airtel Limited, vide their letter dated 08.01.2018 had forwarded
the Call Data Record‟s (CDR) and attested copies of the application form submitted by the subscribers at the time of obtaining the mobile connections
pertaining to Mobile Nos.9945576999, 9900260205, 9845091226 and 9945660204. M/s BSNL vide their letter dated 20.01.2018 had forwarded the
Call Data Record‟s (CDR) and attested copies of the application form submitted by the subscribers at the time of obtaining the mobile connections
pertaining to Mobile Nos. 9480550606 & 9757215645. The analysis of CDR‟s for the period 01.06.2017 to 31.12.2017 submitted by various service
providers was perused.Â
45.On perusal of the Subscriber Data Record (SDR) pertaining to mobile number 9480550606 being used by Shri Dinesh Gowda it was observed that
the same were issued in the name of Shri Yashwaanth Kumar S/o. Govindegowda. Similarly, SDR pertaining to mobile number 916784774 being
used by you, was issued in the name of Shri Saurabh Sunil Kadam s/o Shiv Kumar Ram. Summons have been issued to the persons on whom the
said mobile phones have been registered to ascertain their relationship and as to how the sim cards were transferred to the accused. Analysis of the
call records clearly indicates that:
•Shri Dinesh is one of the key persons operating from Bangalore, Karnataka and is in constant touch with you, Krishna and the transporter Shri
Dhanraj Shetty.Â
•Shri Dinesh was also in touch with Shri Nasir on 06 occasions.
•Krishna was in constant touch with Shri Dinesh who, as per the statements of Krishna and Shri Dinesh dated 30.12.2017 was receiving directions
with reference to misdeclaring the description, value and quantity of the imported goods to customs.
•Krishna was also in constant touch with you who was also giving directions with reference to filing of documents with customs.
•Krishna was also in constant touch with Shri Dhanraj Shetty the transporter of imported goods from Bangalore to Mumbai during the period from
June 17 to December 2017.
•Krishna was contacted Shri Sudheer on 34 occasions.
•Shri Sudheer, has contacted Krishna on 33 occasions and Shri Dinesh on 04 occasions during the period from 01.06.2017 to 31.12.2017.â€
“63. In view of the facts, circumstances, findings, corroborative evidences, WhatsApp conversation & Phone call-data analysis of the mobile phone
belonging to you, Sahil Zafar, Krishna Naik and Shri Dinesh Gowda, I find that you were actively involved in smuggling of readymade garments etc.
by mis-declaring descriptions, quantity and value of goods thereby evading duty and hence you were liable to be prosecuted under the Customs Act,
1962. This was not a one-time act but a well organised modus operandi to continually smuggle goods into India.â€Â
“75. While passing the Detention Order under the provisions of the COFEPOSA Act, 1974, I have relied upon the documents mentioned in the
enclosed list, which are also being served to you along with the grounds of detentionâ€. Â
24. In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the present case is squarely covered by the decision in Smitha Gireesh(supra). The
detention of the petitioners under Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act cannot be sustained. The detention of the petitioners are, accordingly,
quashed and set aside.  The detenues be released forthwith in accordance with law, unless they are required in any other case. Â
