M.P.C. Nazir v State of Kerala and others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR** ## **&** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH** **FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 / 22ND CHAITHRA, 1941 WP(Crl.).No. 479 of 2018** ## **PETITIONER:** **M.P.C. NAZIR, 15/1170, ELAVANCHALIL HOUSE, KODUVALLI P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673 572. BY ADV. M.AJAY** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE STATE OF KERALA (REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY), HOME & VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT, THE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.** - **2 UNION OF INDIA,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, 5TH FLOOR, B WING, JANPATH BHAVAN, JANPATH,NEW DELHI, PIN-110 001.** - **3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE,CALICUT REGIONAL UNIT, THYAG, NO.16/1043-A, FRANCIS ROAD, CHALAPPURAM P.O., KOZHIKODE, PIN-673 002.** - **4 THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 012.** **R1 & R4 BY PP- SRI K.A ANAS R2 BY ADV. SRI.KRISHNADAS P.NAIR, CGC R3 BY ADV.SRI.S.MANU** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12.04.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(Crl.)No.479 of 2018 2 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Ravikumar, J.** This Habeas Corpus writ petition, _in re_ Sri.Abulais @ Abdul Laise, is filed by his father Sri.M.P.C.Nazir. Under Ext.P1 dated 15.03.2014 passed under Sections 3(1)(i) and 3(1)(ii) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 ('COFEPOSA Act', for short), the said Abulais was ordered to be detained and is presently confined in Central Prison, Poojappura, pursuant to the execution of the said order, on 26.08.2018. 2. Earlier, Ext.P1 order of detention dated 15.03.2014 was challenged by the detenu himself in W.P.(C) No.31214/2016 at the predetention stage. After its dismissal as per Ext.P4 judgment, he unsuccessfully challenged the same before the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP No.12730/2017. In fact, the SLP was dismissed as infructuous. It is after Ext.P5 order that Ext.P1 order was executed and he was detained. In this writ petition, to mount challenge against Exts.P1 and P8 orders, manifold submissions have been raised. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the 3[rd] respondent, the learned Public Prosecutor and also the Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the 2[nd] respondent, we are of the considered view that all W.P.(Crl.)No.479 of 2018 3 the contentions adverted to by the petitioner as also the rival contentions raised by the respondents need not be adverted to before considering and answering one of the questions involved in the matter. According to us, the necessity to consider the other contentions would arise only if we answer that question in the negative. Before adverting to that question, which is to be considered first, it is only apropos to state the facts and circumstances that led to the issuance of Ext.P1 order of detention of Sri.Abulais. On 08.11.2013 the officers of the 3[rd] respondent intercepted two passengers namely, Miss.Rahila Cheerayi and Miss.Hiromasa V. Sebastian, on their arrival at Calicut International Airport in Air India Express Flight No.IX 344, from Dubai. Search was conducted on them which led to the recovery of 3 Kgs. of gold bars, from each of them, which were concealed in their body. It is the case of the respondents that in their statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 on 08.11.2013 both of them admitted regarding the smuggling of gold on that day and also on certain previous occasions. In their statement, they stated that the detenu, on an earlier occasion i.e., on 19.09.2013, accompanied them from Dubai to Kochi when they were smuggling gold bars. In fact, according to the statements of Ms.Rahila and Ms.Hiromasa, they smuggled 4 and 3 Kgs. of gold bars respectively on that occasion and they handed over the gold to an associate of Shahbas and Company. In the statement of W.P.(Crl.)No.479 of 2018 4 Rahila, she stated that she had been associated with a firm by name 'MPC General Trading LLC', Dubai which was owned by one Shahbas M. and one Nabeel. In her statement Ms.Hiromasa stated that she was working as a Cabin Crew with Air India Express, Ms.Rahila was her room-mate and owing to financial difficulties she expressed willingness to Ms.Rahila to work as a Carrier Passenger for gold smuggling gang led by Shahbas. Subsequent to the recording of statements of the aforesaid two ladies, one Lyod Rodrigues, S/o.Lawrence Rodrigues, was summoned and his statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act was also recorded. In his statement, Lyod Rodrigues stated that MPC General Trading LLC is jointly owned by one Nabeel, Shahbas and the detenu. It is a fact that in connection with smuggling of gold bars for and on behalf of that MPC General Trading LLC, both Rahila Cheerayi and Hiromasa Sebastian were proceeded with and in their case as well, orders of detention under Sections 3(1)(i) and 3(1)(ii) of COFEPOSA Act were issued. The said two ladies unsuccessfully challenged their orders of detention before this Court. In respect of the aforementioned Nabeel also, such an order was passed which is yet to be executed. In respect of Shahbas too, such an order was passed on 25.02.2014. The order of detention was executed in respect of Shahbas on 11.08.2015. While under detention, the said Sri.Shahbas filed a representation before the Advisory Board constituted under the COFEPOSA Act. The Advisory W.P.(Crl.)No.479 of 2018 5 Board, after considering his representation and all the relevant documents which led to the issuance of the detention order, gave its opinion to the State Government that there is no sufficient reason for detaining him under the COFEPOSA Act. Annexure-1 order bearing No.16519/SSA4/2014/Home dated 19.10.2015 would reveal that pursuant to the receipt of the opinion of the Advisory Board, the Government had passed an order, invoking the power under Clause 8 of the COFEPOSA Act, revoking the order of detention dated 25.02.2014 issued against the said Shahbas Mohammed. Consequently, as per Annexure-1 he was ordered to be released forthwith. We referred to the aforesaid aspect to deal with the core contention of the petitioner, which we are going to consider firstly, that though Annexure-1 order of revocation of the order of detention of Sri.Shahbas was annexed along with Ext.P6 representation filed by him, the said relevant factor was not duly taken note of. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the Advisory Board did not take into consideration the relevant fact borne out from Annexure-1. It is the further contention that though that crucial factor was brought to notice, the detaining authority had also failed to take note of the said relevant aspect in its true perspective while confirming Ext.P1 order of detention, as per Ext.P8 order. Based on the aforesaid aspects, it is contended that the failure to take note of the said crucial factor is fatal W.P.(Crl.)No.479 of 2018 6 to the impugned order of detention and also to the order of its confirmation. According to the petitioner, Exts.P1 and P8 orders got vitiated and are liable to be set aside. To buttress the said contention, the learned counsel relied on a Division Bench judgment of the Mumbai Highcourt in **Smt.Chandbi Mohomed Hanif Abubakar** v **. Union of India and others (1986 0 Supreme (Mah) 343),** the Division Bench decisions of Rajasthan High Court in **Kamal Kishore Tripathi son of Shri.Ram Niwas** v. **The State of Rajasthan** reported in **2017 0 Supreme (Raj) 316,** this Court in **Priya Menon** v. **State of Kerala** reported in **2016 (4) KLT 574** and **Leema Sebastian** v. **State of Kerala (2015 (4) KLJ 49)** and a Constitutional Bench decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in **K.M.Abdulla Kunhi** v. **Union of India** reported in **(1991) 1 SCC 476** . 4. Resisting the contention raised relying on the said decisions the learned Public Prosecutor as also learned counsel appearing for the third respondent submitted that the opinion given by the Advisory Board as also the order confirming the detention order cannot be said to be vitiated owing to the non-consideration of Annexure-1 appended to Ext.P6, which is only an order revoking the order of detention of a co-detenu of the detenu concerned, in the same transaction. To drive home the same the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in W.P.(Crl.)No.479 of 2018 7 **Safiya** v **. Government of Kerala and others** reported in **(2003) 7 SCC 46** . The learned Public Prosecutor too, placed reliance on it. 5. As stated hereinbefore, we need to consdier the other contentions raised by the petitioner to mount challenge against Exts.P1 and P8 and the rival contentions raised by the respondents to maintain them only if the answer to the aforesaid question viz., whether nonconsideration of Annexure-1 would vitiate the opinion of the Advisory Board and also Ext.P8, in the negative. In such circumstances, firstly, we will proceed to consider the tenability of the aforementioned contention in the light of the decisions relied on by both sides. 6. In the context of the contentions, at the outset, we will refer to the Constitutional Bench decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in **K.M.Abdulla Kunhi's** case (supra). With reference to the constitutional safeguard under Article 22 of the Constitution of India the Apex Court held that Article 22 contains two safeguards in Clauses (4) and (5), therein. The Apex Court went on to hold thus:- “The former requires that if a detenu is liable to be detained for a longer period than three months, his case shall be referred to the Advisory Board which must report before the expiration of the said period of three months that there is in its opinion sufficient cause for such detention. The function of the Board is purely advisory and its report will enable the government to detain the person beyond three months provided the detention is valid on his merits and does not otherwise offend the Constitution. Clause (5) of Article 22 provides that when any person is detained in W.P.(Crl.)No.479 of 2018 8 pursuance of an order made under any law providing for preventive detention the authority making the order shall, as soon as my be, communicate to such person the grounds on which the order has been made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order.” ## 7. In the decision in **K.M.Abdulla Kunhi's** case the Apex Court was dealing with a case under the COFEPOSA Act. Referring to Section 8 therein the Apex Court held that Clause (f) of Section 8 provides that when in the opinion of the Advisory Board there is sufficient cause for the detention of a person the Government may confirm the detention order and continue with the detention for such period as the government deem fit subject to the maximum period permissible under the Act. However, in every case where the Advisory Board in its report gave the opinion that there is no sufficient cause for the detention of the person, the Government should revoke the detention order and release the person forthwith. The Apex Court also held that the provision under Section 8 of the Act, i.e., consideration by the Board is an additional safeguard and not a substitute for consideration of the representation by the Government and that the right to have the representation considered by the Government, is safeguarded by Clause (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution and it must be independent consideration of the detenu's case. Paragraph 16 of the judgment in **K.M.Abdulla Kunhi's** case (supra) is also relevant for the W.P.(Crl.)No.479 of 2018 9 purpose of this case. Paragraph 16 is extracted hereunder:- “ **16** . We agree with the observations in _**Frances Coralie Mullin**_ case. The time imperative for consideration of representation can never be absolute or obsessive. It depends upon the necessities and the time at which the representation is made. The representation may be received before the case is referred to the Advisory Board, but there may not be time to dispose of the representation before referring the case to the Advisory Board. In that situation the representation must also be forwarded to the Advisory Board along with the case of the detenu. The representation may be received after the case of the detenu is referred to the Board. Even in this situation the representation should be forwarded to the Advisory Board provided the Board has not concluded the proceedings. In both the situations there is no question of consideration of the representation before the receipt of report of the Advisory Board. Nor it could be said that the government has delayed consideration of the representation, unnecessarily awaiting the report of the Board. It is proper for the government in such situations to await the report of the Board. If the Board finds no material for detention on the merits and reports accordingly, the government is bound to revoke the order of detention. Secondly, even if the Board expresses the view that there is sufficient cause for detention, the government after considering the representation could revoke the detention. The Board has to submit its report within eleven weeks from the date of detention. The Advisory Board may hear the detenu at his request. The constitution of the Board shows that it consists of eminent persons who are Judges or persons qualified to be Judges of the High Court. It is therefore, proper that the government considers the representation in the aforesaid two situations only after the receipt of the report of the Board. If the representation is received by the government after the Advisory Board has made its report, there could then of course be no question of sending the representation to the Advisory Board. It will have to be dealt with and disposed of by the government as early as possible.” W.P.(Crl.)No.479 of 2018 10 8. Thus, in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in **K.M.Abdulla Kunhi's** case (supra) it can be said with certitude that the constitutional safeguards under Clause (4) of Article 22 and Clause (5) of Article 22 cannot be treated as embedded formalities. The right to representation available under the constitutional provision is intended to achieve a purpose as in matters like the one on hand, it is only as a preventive measure that the person was detained and not at all based on any order punishing him for commission of an offence, on being found guilty. In the decision in **Smt.Chandbi Mohomed Hanif Abubakar's** case (supra) the Division Bench of Bombay High Court was considering a question whether non-placement and consequential non-consideration of the report by the Advisory Board submitted in the case of a co-detenu by the detaining authority, is fatal to the impugned order of detention. In other words, whether it would vitiate the order of detention. In that case, the impugned order was issued to the detenu on 23.6.1983. The list of documents furnished to the detenu would not reveal that the report of the Advisory Board submitted in the case of the said co-detenu was placed before the detaining authority for consideration. Evidently, in that case, the report of the Advisory Board pertaining to the detenu and his co-detenu virtually carried divergent opinion. In such circumstances, the Division Bench of the Bombay High W.P.(Crl.)No.479 of 2018 11 Court held that non-placement and consequential consideration of the said report of the Advisory Board submitted in the case of the codetenu by the detaining authority is fatal to the impugned order of detention. True that, in the case on hand, Annexure-1 in Ext.P6, the order of revocation in respect of the co-detenu of the detenu concerned was not in existence at the time of issuance of Ext.P1. In other words, it was passed only subsequent to Ext.P1. But, at the same time, it is a fact that by the time the Advisory Board took up the matter pertaining to the detenu in question viz., Sri.Abulais for consideration for giving its report Annexure-1 in Ext.P6 was very much available. In other words, before taking up the matter of the detenu here for the purpose of giving opinion to the detaining authority for consideration whether to confirm or cancel the order of detention, the Advisory Board had taken up the matter for such opinion in the case of the co-detenu Sri.Shahbas and Annexure-1 in Ext.P6 would reveal that in respect of Sri.Shahbas the Advisory Board gave an opinion that there is no sufficient reason for detaining him. But, the Advisory Board which gave such an opinion in respect of the co-detenu failed to take note of that aspect while giving its opinion in the case of the detenu. It is such a report given without considering the opinion which the Board itself gave in respect of the codetenu Sri.Shahbas, in the same transaction that was considered by the Government while considering the question of confirmation or otherwise W.P.(Crl.)No.479 of 2018 12 of Ext.P1 order of detention. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that virtually, the opinion of the Advisory Board in respect of the codetenu namely, Shahbas (Annexure-1 in Ext.P6) was made available to the Government before passing Ext.P8 order. We have carefully scanned Ext.P8 order. There is nothing in Ext.P8 order which would reveal that Annexure-1 in Ext.P6 which is the order revoking the detention of the co-detenu and also opinion of the Advisory Board which led to the issuance of Annexure-1, were placed before the Government before the issuance of Ext.P8. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that in fact, the order of revocation of the detention in respect of Shahbas, the co-detenu was forwarded to the Advisory Board in 2015 much prior to making its opinion as relates the detenu, in the year 2017. Evidently, in the case of Sri.Shahbas, the co-detenu of Sri.Abulais, the order of revocation of the order of detention was passed pursuant to the receipt of an opinion from the Advisory Board that in respect of Shahbas there is no sufficient ground for detention. The question whether the order passed by the Government revoking the order of detention is communicated to the Advisory Board or not would got no insignificance for the simple reason that the very opinion in the case of Sri.Shahbas in the same transaction was given by the Board itself. When in the case of a co-detenu in the same transaction an opinion was given by the Advisory Board, when it takes up the case W.P.(Crl.)No.479 of 2018 13 of another detenu involved in the same transaction, the Board was bound to consider its earlier opinion in regard to the co-detenu. Shortly stated, in this case, despite the communication of Annexure-1 in Ext.P6 pertaining to the co-detenu the Advisory Board had failed to take it into consideration in its true perspective. This would certainly vitiate the opinion of the Advisory Board in respect of the detenu Sri.Abulais. Add to it, the indisputable and undisputed fact is that this aspect was not at all considered by the Government which passed Annexure-1 in Ext.P6 while passing Ext.P8 order. Evidently, Ext.P8 order is dated 12.11.2018 and Annexure-1 in Ext.P6 was passed much earlier viz., on 19.10.2015. At any rate, Government could not have and should not have ignored Annexure-1 in Ext.P6 in respect of co-detenu namely Shahbas, in the same transaction while considering the issue of confirmation of Ext.P1 order of detention issued in relation to the detenu in question. In this context, it is to be noted that in Ext.P2 grounds of detention issued to the detenu Sri.Abulais, more specifically in paragraph 62 therein itself, it is stated thus:- “Government have already issued detention orders in respect of Shahbas. Hiromasa and Rahila under COFEPOSA Act.” Hence, the fact that Sri.Shahbas in respect of whose case Annecure-1 in Ext.P6 was passed, was a co-detenu of Sri.Abulais in the same transaction was known to the Government while issuing Ext.P8 order. W.P.(Crl.)No.479 of 2018 14 Therefore, the question is whether the indisputable fact that the Advisory Board as also the detaining authority had failed to consider the order of revocation of the detention order of the co-detenu in the same transaction viz., Annexure-1 in Ext.P6 passed in relation to Shahbas, is fatal to the order confirming the detention of the detenu and whether it is sufficient to vitiate the same ? 9. We will now, consider the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent in **Safiya's** case (supra). The learned counsel contended that the contentions raised therein are akin to the contentions raised in this case and therefore, the dictum in the decision in **Safiya's** case is to be followed. We are afraid, the said contention cannot be upheld for the reason given in the said decision itself. In that context, the recital in paragraph 17 of the decision in **Safiya's** case (supra) assumes relevance and it reads thus:- “Since we are disposing of the appeal on factual basis and on the basis of the records placed before us, we are not referring to the judgments cited by the learned counsel for both the sides.” (underline supplied) Thus, it is evident that the Apex Court had disposed of the appeal viz., rendered **Safiya's** case purely on factual basis obtained in that case after perusing the records placed before the Apex Court in that case, without referring to the judgments cited by both sides. In such W.P.(Crl.)No.479 of 2018 15 circumstances, the said contention of the learned counsel for the third respondent cannot be upheld. 10. In this contextual situation, it is relevant to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in **Alpesh Navinchandra Shah** v. **State of Maharashtra ((2007) 2 SCC 777),** after referring to the earlier judgment in **Pawan Bhartiya** v. **Union of India ((2003 11 SCC 479).** The Apex Court held thus:- “The above judgment, in our view, squarely applies to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. In the instant case, the petitioner's brother has already been released on the ground there was no sufficient cause for the detention of the detenu under Section 3(1) of the Act. The Government also accordingly revoked the detention order issued against him and the Government of Maharashtra, after considering the report of the Advisory Board and the material on record and in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 8(f) of the COFEPOSA Act revoked the aforesaid detention order and further directed that Kamlesh Navinchandra Shah be released forthwith on receipt of the said order dated 05.06.2006. In our opinion, the petitioner before us who is also similarly placed and who has also paid the customs duty etc. pursuant to the order of the Settlement Commission and got the unconditional immunity by the Settlement Commission is entitled to the same treatment. At the time of hearing, it is pointed out that the petitioner has ceased his activities in the field of import or export and has already paid the tax with penalty as demanded by the authority and there is nothing on record that the appellant has indulged in any such activity in the recent past. It is settled by law that the purpose of passing the detention order is to prevent the detenu from continuing his prejudicial activity but not to punish him.” (emphasis supplied) W.P.(Crl.)No.479 of 2018 16 It is evident from the afore-extracted portion from the decision in **Alpesh Navinchandra Shah's** case (supra) that virtually, the Apex Court held that non-consideration of an order of revocation of detention of a co-detenu passed after considering the report of the Advisory Board would vitiate the subsequent order confirming the order of detention of a detenu involved in the same transaction. In the context of the aforesaid contention it is also relevant to refer to the decision of the High Court of Uttar Pradesh in **Jagdish Prasad Kasana Alias Jaggi** v. **State of Uttar Pradesh (2001 0 Crl.J 372)** . For the purpose of this case it is suffice to extract paragraph 11 of the said decision. It reads thus:- “It is not disputed that co-accused Arun Kumar Jain was also detained under Section 3 of the Act, but his detention order was revoked by the State Government on the advice of Advisory Board. It is clear from the affidavit of Sri.A.K.Awasthi, District Magistrate, Meerut dated 24-4-2000 that the order of revocation was well within his knowledge, but it was not considered before passing detention order of the petitioners. Sri.Mahendra Pratap, learned A.G.A. Contemplated that the revocation order was confidential document and was not available to the detaining authority and he had no access to it, therefore, it was not taken into consideration. Relying on Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of **Chandresh Paswan** v. **State of U.P. (1999) All LJ 1167)** he contended that if the detaining authority was not possessed of the document, there was no question for consideration by aim and there was sufficient material for forming the subjective satisfaction for passing an order of preventive detention against the petitioner and non- W.P.(Crl.)No.479 of 2018 17 consideration of the revocation order would not vitiate the order.” In that case, the order of revocation passed in respect of a co-detenu was not considered before passing detention order in respect of the petitioner therein. In that case, one co-accused by name Arun Kumar Jain was also detained in respect of the same transaction, under Section 3 of the National Security Act. In his case, the order of detention was revoked. A contention was raised that the order of detention of Arun Kumar is a confidential document and therefore, it could not be made available to the detaining authority. The High Court held that the said order could not be said to be a confidential document for the State. It was held that it vitiated the order passed in the case of the petitioner therein. In the case on hand, as noticed hereinbefore, at the time when Ext.P1 detention order was passed Annexure-1 in Ext.P6 was not in existence. But, at the same time, we are of the view that the ratio of the said decision is applicable in this case. This is because the order of revocation in respect of co-detenu Sri.Shahbas was passed by the Government. Ext.P2, the grounds of detention issued to the detenu in this case viz., Sri.Abulais would reveal the fact that Sri.Shahbas was his co-detenu, in the same transaction is very much known to the Government. The case of Sri.Abulais came up for consideration of the Government to consider whether Ext.P1 is to be W.P.(Crl.)No.479 of 2018 18 confirmed or not only after the issuance of Annexure-1 in Ext.P6 and therefore, was very much available for consideration. 11. The first respondent-Government could not be heard to contend that the factum of issuance of Annexure-1 of Ext.P6 in respect of the co-detenu of Sri.Abulais was not known to it or that the fact that Sri.Shahbas was a co-detenu of Sri.Abulais in the same transaction was not known to it or that Annexure-1 in Ext.P6 was not within its possession. In the contextual situation, it is all the more relevant to note that even going by Ext.P2, Sri.Shahbas is the head of _'MPC General Trading LLC'_ that is involved in smuggling activities and it was his detention, in the same transaction, that was revoked as per Annexure-1 of Ext.P6. Non-consideration of all the aforesaid aspects by the Government in the light of the decisions referred supra cannot be lightly taken and according to us, they are sufficient to hold Ext.P8 order confirming the order of detention, as vitiated. Once it is found that Ext.P8 order whereby Ext.P1 order was confirmed is vitiated owing to non-consideration of Annexure-1 in Ext.P6, Ext.P8 order is liable to be interfered with. In such circumstances, we do not think it necessary to consider the other contentions. Ext.P1 order cannot have independent existence once Ext.P8 is interfered with. Resultantly, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order viz., Ext.P8 dated 12.11.2018 confirming Ext.P1 order issued W.P.(Crl.)No.479 of 2018 19 against the detenu namely, Shri.Abulais @ Abdul Laise, S/o.M.P.C.Nasser, 95(15/1170), Elavanchalil House, Koduvally, Calicut, Kerala is set aside and the detenu is directed to be released from detention forthwith, if he is not required in any other case. Sd/- **C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge** Sd/- **N.NAGARESH Judge** TKS W.P.(Crl.)No.479 of 2018 20 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** - **EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF DETENTION NO.17034/SS A4/2014/HOME DATED 15.03.14 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 07.11.2015.** - **EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE GROUNDS OF DETENTION.** - **EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF DOCUMENTS ISSUED TO THE DETENU ALONG WITH THE GROUNDS OF DETENTION.** - **EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'COURT IN WP(C)NO.31214/2016 DATED 15.11.2016.** - **EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON.SUPREME COURT IN SLP 12730/2017 DATED 28.04.2017.** - **EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION ADDRESSED TO THE COFEPOSA ADVISORY BOARD, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM DATED 04.09.2018.** - **EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.17034/SS A4/2014/HOME ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT DATED 28.09.2018.** - **EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT)NO.3302/2018/HOME DATED 12.11.2018.** - **EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO F.NO.PD-19013/01/2018COFEPOSA ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 14.11.2018.** - **EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT RECORDED FROM Ms.RAHILA DATED 8.11.13.** - **EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT RECORDED FROM Ms.HIROMASA DATED 8.11.13.** ## **TKS**