W.P.(Crl.) Nos.138 & 139 of 2020

W.P(Crl.) Nos.138 & 139 of 2020 :1: **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARIPAL** **MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 26TH SRAVANA, 1942** **WP(Crl.).No.138 OF 2020** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **SHAJER.P.K S/O.KUNHAHAMMED, PRAKKANDY HOUSE, KANNADIPOYIL P.O., PANANGAD, KOZHIKODE, PIN-673612.** **BY ADVS. SRI.M.AJAY SRI.V.P.PRASAD** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **1 THE UNION OF INDIA (REPRESENTED BY ITS SPECIAL SECRETARY AND DIRECTOR GENERAL), CENTRAL ECONOMIC INTELLIGENCE BUREAU, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, 5TH FLOOR, B WING, JANPATH BHAVAN, JANPATH, NEW DELHI, PIN-110001. 2 THE JOINT SECRETARY (COFEPOSA), GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CENTRAL ECONOMIC INTELLIGENCE BUREAU, 5TH FLOOR, B WING, JANPATH BHAVAN, JANPATH, NEW DELHI, PIN-110001.** **3 THE DIRECTOR OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE, (REPRESENTED HEREIN BY THE PRINCIPAL ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL), ZONAL UNIT, 32/641A, VYLOPPILLI ROAD, ST.THOMAS LANE, PALLINADA, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI, PIN-682025.** W.P(Crl.) Nos.138 & 139 of 2020 :2: - **4 THE COFEPOSA ADVISORY BOARD, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, (REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, (COFEPOSA), REGISTRAR JUDICIAL, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682031.** - **5 THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON AND CORRECTIONAL HOME,POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695012.** **R1-2 BY SRI.SUVIN R.MENON, CGC R3 BY SRI.S.MANU, CGC, DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE KERALA REGIONAL UNIT R5 BY ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.08.2020, ALONG WITH WP(Crl.).139/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P(Crl.) Nos.138 & 139 of 2020 :3: ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARIPAL** **MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 26TH SRAVANA, 1942** **WP(Crl.).No.139 OF 2020** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **NIKHIL KUMAR MUDGAL AGED 56 YEARS HOUSE # 56, VILLAGE TAJPUR, TAJPUR KHURD P.O., CHHAWLA, NEW DELHI, PIN-110 071.** **BY ADVS. SRI.M.AJAY SRI.V.P.PRASAD** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **1 THE UNION OF INDIA (REPRESENTED BY ITS SPECIAL SECRTARY AND DIRECTOR GENERAL), CENTRAL ECONOMIC INTELLIGENCE BUREAU, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, 5TH FLOOR, B WING, JANPATH BHAVAN, JANPATH, NEW DELHI, PIN-110 001. 2 THE JOINT SECRETARY (COFEPOSA) GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CENTRAL ECONOMIC INTELLIGENCE BUREAU, 5TH FLOOR, B WING, JANPATH BHAVAN, JANPATH, NEW DELHI, PIN-110 001. 3 THE DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE (REPRESENTED HEREIN BY THE PRINCIPAL ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL), ZONAL UNIT, 32/641A, VYLOPPILLI ROAD, ST. THOMAS LANE, PALLINADA, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI, PIN-682 025.** W.P(Crl.) Nos.138 & 139 of 2020 :4: - **4 THE COFEPOSA ADVISORY BOARD HIGH COURT OF KERALA, (REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, (COFEPOSA)), REGISTRAR (JUDICIAL), HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN-682 031.** - **5 THE SUPREINTENDENT CENTRAL PRISON AND CORRECTIONAL HOME, POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 012.** **R1-2 BY SRI.JAISHANKAR V.NAIR, CGC R3 BY SRI.S.MANU, CGC, DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE KERALA REGIONAL UNIT R5 BY ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.08.2020, ALONG WITH WP(Crl.).138/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P(Crl.) Nos.138 & 139 of 2020 :5: ## **COMMON JUDGMENT** ## Haripal, J. These are writ petitions, _inter alia,_ seeking the issuance of writ of habeas corpus or any other writ, order or direction to respondents 1, 2 and 5 to produce the COFEPOSA detenus Muhammed Basheer (D1735) and Rahul (D1736), who are detained in the custody of the 5[th] respondent and to set them at liberty forthwith. As common questions have arisen, respondents being the same and since contentions raised by the parties are identical, on consent of parties, both these cases were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Petitioners are the respective brothers of detenus namely, Muhammed Basheer and Rahul. Muhammed Basheer, the detenu involved in the former writ petition, is a businessman running a jewellery and ornament making unit in Balussery at Kozhikode, whereas Rahul, the detenu involved in the latter writ petition, is an Inspector in Customs, working in International Airport, Karipoor. As per Ext.P4 order in both the writ petitions, W.P(Crl.) Nos.138 & 139 of 2020 :6: issued by the 2[nd] respondent on 31.10.2019 in exercise of the powers under Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', both have been ordered to be detained and kept in Central Prison and Correctional Home, Poojappura, Thiruvananthapuram. The order against Muhammed Basheer was executed on 27.01.2020, whereas Rahul was arrested and detained in the same prison on 08.02.2020. 3. The materials made available before this Court suggest that on 19.08.2019, on the basis of specific intelligence reports received by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Kochi, four persons, who came down to Kannur International Airport from abroad by different flights, were intercepted and found smuggling gold by concealing inside electrical home appliances like microwave oven and meat mincer. Thus, 11.035 kgs of gold were seized from them while trying to smuggle it to India without paying customs duty. The specific allegation against the detenus is that Muhammed Basheer had played vital role in smuggling of gold of foreign origin along with other accomplices. It is also alleged that he had designed the plan in an organized and repeated manner in the act of smuggling. According to the respondents 1 to 4, W.P(Crl.) Nos.138 & 139 of 2020 :7: investigations made by the DRI clearly establish his continued propensity and inclination to indulge in acts of smuggling in a planned manner to the detriment of the economic security of the country and therefore, the detaining authority was satisfied that, in order to prevent him from repeating the illegal acts, he should be detained under the Act. 4. On the same day, the respondents received confidential inputs that two more passengers would be smuggling gold through Cochin International Airport Limited (CIAL). On that basis, two passengers, who landed in International Airport, Kochi from Sharjah, were also intercepted and 2566 grams of gold metal bars and 2654.5 grams of gold were recovered from them while smuggling, in contravention of the provisions of the Customs Act. 5. The specific allegation of the respondents is that everything was stage managed by Muhammed Basheer, who is the kingpin in these smuggling activities along with his accomplices. The allegation against detenu Rahul, a Customs Inspector, is that he had facilitated, with the connivance of some other officers in the department, in smuggling gold from abroad. It is alleged that he had very close rapport with the gang of smugglers, which was being W.P(Crl.) Nos.138 & 139 of 2020 :8: operated by Muhammed Basheer and others. On the strength of investigation, statements of witnesses and other materials, two cases were registered by the DRI, basing on which both of them were arrested and kept under detention, as stated above. In the nature of the allegations and the order we propose to pass, it is not necessary to state in detail all the allegations made against the detenus. Suffice it to say that, going by the conclusions reached by the authorities, Muhammed Basheer is one of the kingpins of the smuggling activities of gold through the international airports of Kannur, Kozhikode and Nedumbassery; the syndicate was engaged in repeated smuggling of gold with the active connivance of Customs Inspector Rahul and other officials. Section 3 of the Act was invoked to pre-empt their repeated illegal activities, which are against the security of the country. 6. The order of detention, grounds of detention and relied upon documents were duly served on them. It is also evident that their reference in respect of detention was made to the Advisory Board on 25.02.2020, as provided under Section 8(b) of the Act. On 26.02.2020, both of them sent representations addressed to respondents 1, 2 and 4, as evidenced by Exts.P7 to P9 documents, W.P(Crl.) Nos.138 & 139 of 2020 :9: respectively. It is also evident from materials that through Ext.P10 memorandum, both the detenus were informed of the reference made on 25.02.2020. In the same communication they were informed that the Advisory Board had posted the cases for hearing at 3.00 P.M. on Monday, 16[th] of March, 2020 in the High Court. The grievance of the petitioners is that the detention orders were passed based on selected materials and inferences, conclusions and conjunctures that too on incomplete and inchoate facts, that the orders were passed without personally perusing, understanding and assimilating the relevant materials. 7. All possible contentions have been raised challenging the detention orders. After hearing counsel on both sides at great length and perusing the materials on record, we feel that it is not necessary to enumerate and consider all the grounds urged in support of the contentions raised by the petitioners. In our opinion, at least for two reasons, which are very formidable, continued detention of the detenus cannot be justified. 8. It is the specific contention of the petitioners that both the detenus have represented before respondents 1, 2 and 4 that they were not supplied with all materials and information to understand W.P(Crl.) Nos.138 & 139 of 2020 :10: the charge made against them. This is evident from the respective representations and also Ground No.22 in W.P.(Crl.) No.138 of 2020 and Ground No.20 in W.P.(Crl.) No.139 of 2020. Similarly, through Ground Nos.23 and 22 respectively, it has been urged that the 1[st] respondent, to whom the request for information materials and documents was addressed, has not considered the request within a reasonable period and that rendered the detention order, the order of confirmation and continued detention of the detenus unconstitutional, illegal and unsustainable. In our opinion, having regard to the facts and materials, these contentions are insurmountable. 9. Ext.P12 memorandum dated 13.03.2020 in both the writ petitions indicate that the respective representations addressed to the 2[nd] respondent on 26.02.2020 were examined by him but were rejected. Similarly, in Ext.P13 communication dated 13.03.2020, referring to Ext.P12, it is shown on behalf of the 2[nd] respondent, the 4[th] respondent Secretary of the COFEPOSA Advisory Board, High Court was informed that the representations addressed to the detaining authority was disposed of, as per the recent judgment dated 04.03.2020 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Ankit Ashok** W.P(Crl.) Nos.138 & 139 of 2020 :11: **Jalan v. Union of India [AIR 2020 SC 1936]** . At the same time, it is stated that the representations addressed to the 1[st] respondent is kept pending for want of opinion/report of Advisory Board as per judgment dated 03.06.2015 of the Apex Court in **Golam Biswas v. Union of India [(2015) 16 SCC 177]** . 10. In the counter affidavit in both cases, filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, it has been averred as follow: “33. …......The P-7 and P-8 representations were received at the Ministry on 03.03.2020 and 02.03.2020 respectively. The comments thereon were sought on 05.03.2020 and 03.03.2020 respectively from the Sponsoring Authority. The comments of the Sponsoring Authority were received on 12.03.2020. On the basis of the comments furnished by the Sponsoring Authority, material/evidences on record, the Exhibit P-8 was carefully examined and considered by the Detaining Authority who considered the requests of the detenue and the same have accordingly been rejected by the Detaining Authority on 12.03.2020 and the decision was communicated to the detenue vide Exhibit P12 memorandum. As regards Exhibit P-7, it is respectfully submitted that keeping in view the judgment dated 03.06.2015 of the Apex Court delivered in Crl. Appeal No.829 of 2015 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.2489 of 2015 in the matter of Golam W.P(Crl.) Nos.138 & 139 of 2020 :12: Biswas Vs. Union of India, the Exhibit P-7 was kept pending for want of the opinion of the Advisory Board. The opinion of the Advisory Board was received at the office of the answering respondents on 27.03.2020 during the nationwide lockdown declared by the Government of India with effect from 25.03.2020. The opinion of the Advisory Board was considered by the Central Government and confirmed the same as communicated to the detenue as Exhibit P-14. Subsequently, the Exhibit P-7 was carefully examined and considered by the DG, CEIB on behalf of the Central Govt. and disposed of on 24.06.2020. The said decision has been communicated to the detenue vide memorandum dated 25.06.2020. It is further submitted that both the Exhibits P-7 along with Exhibit P12 was forwarded to the office of the Hon'ble Advisory Board on 13.03.2020 for placing the same before it for perusal and consideration. Accordingly, Hon'ble Advisory Board perused and considered the entire record placed before it and after hearing the detenue and his counsel in person, the Hon'ble Advisory Board opined that there are sufficient reasons for the continued detention of the detenue i.e. Muhammed Basheer. Hence, it is evident that all the representations made by the detenue have been carefully considered by the Authorities concerned and no prejudice has been caused to the detenue in disposal of the representations made by the detenue.” W.P(Crl.) Nos.138 & 139 of 2020 :13: 11. It is trite that a person who is kept under preventive detention, which is an exercise of jurisdiction of suspicion, should be informed of the grounds of detention and also afforded opportunities for making representations against the detention as soon as possible. In the celebrated decision reported in **State of Bombay v. Atma Ram Shridhar Vaidya [AIR 1951 SC 157]** , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clarified that first part of Article 22(5) of the Constitution gives a right to the detained person to be furnished with 'the grounds on which the order has been made' and that has to be done as soon as possible. According to the Supreme Court, second right given to such person is of being afforded 'the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order'. The Supreme Court has held that although both these rights are separate and are to be exercised at different times, they are still connected with each other. 12. Both the detenus have represented before the respondents that they were not furnished with all the grounds and materials relied upon, which had reportedly satisfied the detaining authority about the necessity of their preventive detention. The replies given by the respondents are conspicuously silent about such W.P(Crl.) Nos.138 & 139 of 2020 :14: a grievance raised by them. It is evident from Ext.P8 in both the cases that some pages of the relied upon documents supplied to them, which have been specified, are blacked out and incapable of being understood by anyone and that photocopies totally lacked clarity. Thus they had sought to supply clear copies of all those records so that they could understand the same and make effective representations against the detention. It is complained that page 397 has not been supplied. But no reply is seen to have been given to these representations nor there is a case that the omissions were supplied. Instead, those representations have been dealt with as though they were made under Article 22(5) of the Constitution. In our view, on this ground alone the continued detention of the detenus is liable to be interfered with. 13. Secondly, we are afraid as to how the respondents would be justified in placing reliance on the authorities of **Golam Biswas** and **Ankit Ashok Jalan** , quoted supra. In **Golam Biswas** 's case, the following paragraph from **K.M.Abdulla Kunhi v. Union of India [(1991) 1 SCC 476]** , has been extracted with approval: “16. We agree with the observations in _Frances Coralie_ W.P(Crl.) Nos.138 & 139 of 2020 :15: _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 person 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 W.P(Crl.) Nos.138 & 139 of 2020 :16: 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.” ## Then the Apex Court proceeded in Golam Biswas's case thus: “14. As the quoted text would reveal, in essence, it was reiterated that if a representation is received by an appropriate authority and there is no time to dispose of the same having regard to the time-frame fixed by the Act for reference of the matter to the Advisory Board, the representation must also be forwarded to the Advisory Board, along with the records of the detenu. This assumes significance, in our comprehension, in view of the binding nature of the opinion of the Advisory Board, in case, on a consideration of the materials on record it decides to hold against the detention. In case the Advisory Board holds that the detention order is invalid, it is not open for the appropriate Government to continue therewith and it has to essentially revoke the same though the converse may not be the same. In other words, if the Advisory Board upholds the order of detention, it would still be open to the Central Government, depending on the merits of each case, to release the detenu. The fact that the opinion of the Advisory Board against continuance of the order of detention is final vis-a-vis the appropriate Government, in our opinion, is the motivating imperative for requiring the appropriate Government to forward the pending representation to the Advisory Board so as to enable it to traverse the entire panorama of grounds taken against the detention order for an effective, timely and meaningful consideration of the case of the detenu. This requirement as has been essentially recognised and mandated by two decisions of the Constitution W.P(Crl.) Nos.138 & 139 of 2020 :17: Bench of this Court, does not, in any way, undermine the appropriate Government's authority to consider and dispose of such representation of any detenue under the preventive detention law. The right of the Central Government or for that matter any appropriate Government to consider and dispose of a representation of a detenu, preventively detained, has to be harmoniously construed with the obligation cast on it to forward a pending representation to the Advisory Board as has been consistently held in _Jayanarayan Sukul and K.M. Abdulla Kunhi_ .” From **Ankit Ashok Jalan** 's case, it is evident that the Supreme Court has held that paragraph 16 of the decision in **Abdulla Kunhi** 's case has to be understood in the subsequent decision rendered by a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in **Kamalesh Kumar v. Union of India and others [(1995) 4 SCC 51]** . In the light of the decision of the Apex Court in **Ankit Ashok Jalan** 's case, the detaining authority ought not to have waited for the report of the Advisory Board and ought to have considered the representation independently. Here that has not been done. 14. Worsening the case of the petitioners it is certain that the Advisory Board, which had met on 16.03.2020, had given its opinion against both the detenus. Thus, by Ext.P14 communication dated 15.04.2020 and 28.04.2020 respectively, orders were issued W.P(Crl.) Nos.138 & 139 of 2020 :18: by the 2[nd] respondent, in exercise of powers under Section 8(f) of the Act confirming detention of both the persons and directed their continued detention for a period of one year from the respective dates of detention. Still their representations given under Article 22(5) of the Constitution were considered and disposed of by the 1[st] respondent only on 24.06.2020, i.e. after 120 days. Any explanation for such a long delay cannot stand judicial scrutiny. As a matter of fact, no proper explanation for such a long delay is forthcoming, in both the cases. 15. On these considerations, we are eminently convinced that the continued detention of the detenus cannot be justified. At the same time, we make it clear that we are leaving open all other grounds urged by the petitioners to be raised at appropriate forum, if such a necessity arises, at the appropriate time. 16. We have already indicated that, having regard to the fact that the above stated grounds are clear and clinching, which are sufficient to interfere with the order of detention passed against the detenus. We are fully conscious that the allegations against both the detenus are very serious. All the same, that is not an excuse, having regard to the extraordinary jurisdiction exercised by this Court, to W.P(Crl.) Nos.138 & 139 of 2020 :19: ignore the inherent flaws brought to our notice. In this connection, it is apposite to extract the following passage from **Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab [(1981) 4 SCC 481]** . “May be that the detenu is a smuggler whose tribe (and how their numbers increase !) deserves no sympathy since its activities have paralysed the Indian economy. But the laws of preventive detention afford only a modicum of safeguards to persons detained under them and if freedom and liberty are to have any meaning in our democratic set-up, it is essential that at least those safeguards are not denied to the detenus.” In the result, these Writ Petitions (Crl.) are disposed of with a direction to the respondents to set Sri. Muhammed Basheer and Sri. Rahul at liberty forthwith, in case their custody is not required in connection with any other case. Sd/- **C.T. RAVIKUMAR JUDGE** Sd/- **K.HARIPAL** **JUDGE** okb/17/8/2020 //True copy// P.S. to Judge W.P(Crl.) Nos.138 & 139 of 2020 :20: ## **APPENDIX OF WP(Crl.) 138/2020** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ADDRESSED BY RAHUL TO THE HON.ACJM(EO), ERNAKULAM DATED 1.9.19. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ADDRESSED BY RAHUL TO THE AD, DRI DATED 2.10.19. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THIS COMPLAINT FILED BY THE DETENU BEFORE THE AD, DRI, COCHIN DATED 13.11.19. EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE DETENTION ORDER F.NO.PD12001/54/2019-COFEPOSA ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 31.10.19. EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE GROUNDS OF DETENTION ISSUED TO THE DETENU DATED 30.1.20. EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF DOCUMENTS SERVED ON THE DETENU ALONG WITH THE GROUNDS OF DETENTION. EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST FOR INFORMATION, MATERIALS AND DOCUMENTS ADDRESSED BY THE DETENU TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 26.2.20. EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST FOR INFORMATION, MATERIALS AND DOCUMENTS ADDRESSED BY THE DETENU TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 26.2.20. EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION ADDRESSED BY THE DETENU TO THE FOURTH RESPONDENT DATED 26.2.2020. EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM NO.PD/13001/01/2020/COFEPOSA DATED 6.3.20 ADDRESSED BY THE DS, GOI TO THE DETENU DATED 12.3.20. EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AB BY THE DETENU DATED 16.3.20.** W.P(Crl.) Nos.138 & 139 of 2020 :21: |**EXHIBIT P12**|**A TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION PD-**| |---|---| ||**150001/07/2020-COFEPOSA ISSUED BY THE DS,**| ||**GOI DATED 13.3.20.**| |**EXHIBIT P13**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.PD-**| ||**13001/01/2020-COFEPOSA ADDRESSED BY THE DS,**| ||**GOI DATED 13.3.20.**| |**EXHIBIT P14**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL PRINTOUT OF THE**| ||**ORDER PD-12001/54/2019-COFEPOSA DATED**| ||**15.4.20.**| |**EXHIBIT P15**|**A TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION ADDRESSED BY**| ||**THE DETENU TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED**| ||**25.3.20.**| |**EXHIBIT P16**|**A TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION ADDRESSED BY**| ||**THE DETENU TO THE DA DATED 25.3.20.**| |**EXHIBIT P17**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT OF THE EMAIL**| ||**SERVED ON THE DETENU BY THE FIFTH**| ||**RESPONDENT DATED 7.5.20.**| |**EXHIBIT P18**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT OF THE EMAIL**| ||**SERVED ON THE DETENU BY THE FIFTH**| ||**RESPONDENT DATED 7.5.20.**| W.P(Crl.) Nos.138 & 139 of 2020 :22: ## **APPENDIX OF WP(Crl.) 139/2020** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ADDRESSED BY THE DETENU TO THE HON'ACJM (EO), ERNAKULAM DATED 1.9.19. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ADDRESSED BY THE DETENU TO THE AD, DRI DATED 2.10.19. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THIS COMPLAINT FILED BY MUHAMMED BASHEER BEFORE THE AD, DRI, COCHIN DATED 13.11.19. EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE DETENTION ORDER F.NO.PD12001/55/2019-COFEPOSA ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 31.10.19. EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE GROUNDS OF DETENTION ISSUED TO THE DETENU DATED 10.2.20. EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF DOCUMENTS SERVED ON THE DETENU ALONG WITH THE GROUNDS OF DETENTION. EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST FOR INFORMATION, MATERIALS AND DOCUMENTS ADDRESSED BY THE DETENU TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 26.2.2020. EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST FOR INFORMATION, MATERIALS AND DOCUMENTS ADDRESSED BY THE DETENU TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 26.2.2020. EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION ADDRESSED BY THE DETENU TO THE FOURTH RESPONDENT DATED 26.2.2020. EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM NO.PD/13001/01/2020/COFEPOSA DATED 6.3.20 ADDRESSED BY TEH DS, GOI TO THE DETENU DATED 12.3.2020. EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AB BY THE DETENU DATED 16.3.20.** W.P(Crl.) Nos.138 & 139 of 2020 :23: |**EXHIBIT P12**|**A TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION PD-**| |---|---| ||**15001/09/2020-COFEPOSA ISSUED BY THE DS,**| ||**GOI DATED 13.3.20.**| |**EXHIBIT P13**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.PD-**| ||**13001/01/2020-COFEPOSA ADDRESSED BY THE DS,**| ||**GOI DATED 13.3.2020.**| |**EXHIBIT P14**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL PRINTOUT OF THE**| ||**ORDER PD-12001/55/2019-COFEPOSA DATED**| ||**28.4.20.**| |**EXHIBIT P15**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION ADDRESSED**| ||**BY THE DETENU TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED**| ||**25.3.20.**| |**EXHIBIT P16**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION ADDRESSED**| ||**BY THE DETENU TO THE DA DATED 25.3.20.**| |**EXHIBIT P17**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT OF THE EMAIL**| ||**SERVED ON THE DETENU BY THE FIFTH**| ||**RESPONDENT DATED 7.5.20.**| |**EXHIBIT P18**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT OF THE EMAIL**| ||**SERVED ON THE DETENU BY THE FIFTH**| ||**RESPONDENT DATED 7.5.20.**|