Judgment : One Kameetha Banu (petitioner) is the wife of the detenu, V.M.Abdul Karim. The detenu, it is said, came to Anna International Airport, Madras on 18. 1994 to go to Singapore. After immigration, he was intercepted and searched. On his pocket, there were Singapore dollar of Rs.150, besides 400 U.S.Dollars. In the baggage there was a tin with marking “Aavin Ghee”. In the said tin, there were large number of foreign currencies of various countries kept concealed. On 18. 1994, the detenu, it is said, gave a voluntary confessional statement disclosing his activities and how he came to possess the said Singapore dollars and foreign currencies. After recording his confessional statement, he was arrested and remanded to custody. On 30.8.1994, the detenu, it is said, got released on bail. 2. The sponsoring authority, in order to preventively detain him under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (Act 52 of 1974 - as amended) placed all requisite and relevant materials before the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Economic Intelligence Bureau, COFEPOSA Section, 6th Floor, “B” Wing, Janpath Bhawan, New Delhi (first respondent - detaining authority), who, in turn, on consideration of the materials so placed and deriving solidified satisfaction as to the impelling or compelling need to preventively detain him under the provisions referred to above, passed the impugned order of detention, in his proceedings F.No.673/170/94-CUS-VIII, dated 10. 1994, with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the conservation of country’s foreign exchange resources in future. 3. The petitioner wife of the detenu would seek to assail the impugned order of detention so passed, in this present action. 4. Mr. B. Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would press into service the lone and sole ground, namely, that though the petitioner sent a covering letter dated 12. 1994, along with nine copies of the representation to the Superintendent, Central Prison, Madras, with a request to forward the same to appropriate authorities, yet, the said Superintendent, opted to send only one copy of the representation to the first respondent - empowered authority of the Central Government alone, which received the same on 112. 1994, along with nine copies of the representation to the Superintendent, Central Prison, Madras, with a request to forward the same to appropriate authorities, yet, the said Superintendent, opted to send only one copy of the representation to the first respondent - empowered authority of the Central Government alone, which received the same on 112. 1994 and not sent another copy of the representation to the Union of India (Second respondent) and failure to send a copy of the representation by the said Superintendent to the second respondent - Union of India vitiated the impugned order or detention, inasmuch as prejudice had been caused to the detenu, in the sense of his representation, not being considered by the Union of India (second respondent) and in such state of affairs, he would say, the impugned order of detention is liable to be set aside. 5. Mr. K. Asokan, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel representing respondents 1 and 2 would, however, repel such a submission and produce all the relevant files and jail records for perusal and consideration of this court. 6. In support of his submission, Mr. B. Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, placed implicit reliance on two decisions emerging from the apex court of this country. We may now refer to them: (1) In Jayaprakash v. District Magistrate (1993 SCC (Crl).121), the District Magistrate, along with the grounds of detention specifically informed the detenu that he has a right to make a representation to the State Government and also to the Central Government. The representation sent by the detenu was neither addressed to the State Government; nor to the Central Government. He only mentioned “Home Secretary” as the addressee, without further indicating whether he meant Home Secretary to “the State Government” or “the Central Government”. However, the detenu gave nine copies of the representation to the Superintendent of Jail for onward submission to the authorities. The Superintendent of Jail, however, sent the representations only to the State Government and not to the Central Government. In such a situation, the Apex Court expressed: “When the detenu gave sufficient number of copies of his representation and left it to the jail authorities to forward the same to the authorities as specified in the grounds of detention, the Superintendent of jail was legally bound to sent one copy to the Central Government. In such a situation, the Apex Court expressed: “When the detenu gave sufficient number of copies of his representation and left it to the jail authorities to forward the same to the authorities as specified in the grounds of detention, the Superintendent of jail was legally bound to sent one copy to the Central Government. We are, therefore, of the view that the detenu was denied his right to make an effective representation and on that short ground his detention is liable to be quashed.” .(2) In B. Alamelu v. State of Tamilnadu and others (1995 S.C.C. (Crl.) 224), the wife of the detenu sent a representation, along with a covering letter dated 5. 1994 addressed to the Superintendent, Central Prison, Madras. She has stated in the said letter, enclosing the representation with nine copies as under: “My husband M. Balakrishnan, S/o. Murugappan is detained in your prison as a detenu under COFEPOSA Act. As per his instructions, I am enclosing his representation. Please send the same to the persons mentioned in the grounds immediately.” The Superintendent of Central Prison, of course, sent one copy of the representation out of nine copies supplied to him to the State Government. However, he failed to send one copy of the representation, out of nine copies supplied to him to the Central Government. It transpires that only the Collector of Customs having come to know about this, sent a copy of the same to the Central Government in a belated fashion. By doing so, there was a delay of 84 days in sending the representation to the Central Government. In considering the failure on the part of the Superintendent of Central Prison in forwarding a copy of the representation out of nine copies supplied to him to the Central Government, the Apex court quoted the decision in Jayaprakash’ s case (supra) and followed and what the Apex Court stated in that connection is relevant, which is reflected as below: “As held by this court in Jai Prakash Case when the detenu gave sufficient number of copies of the representation and left it to the jail authorities to forward the same to the authorities as specified in the grounds of detention, the Superintendent of Jail was legally bound to send one copy to the Central Government. We are, therefore, of the view that the detenu representation at the earliest opportunity and on that short ground his continued detention is liable to be held illegal. In our view on the facts of the present case the ratio of the decision of this court in Jai Prakash case has squarely got attracted.” 7. The ratio, as laid down in Jayaprakash case (supra) and laterly followed by the Apex court in S. Alamelu’s case (supra) is squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case. To recapitulate, the petitioner sent a covering letter to the Superintendent of Central Prison, Madras, along with sufficient number of copies of representation to be forwarded to the “Appropriate Authorities” “Appropriate Authorities, in this connection, would mean not only the first respondent — empowered authority, but also the Union of India — second respondent, as had been so specified in paragraph 13 of the grounds of detention. 8. Since the representation had not been forwarded to the Central Government, as disclosed by the averments in paragraph 10 of the counter filed by the respondents, the detenu’s right, inhering in his favour under article 22(5) of the Constitution of India had been infringed and on this short ground alone, his continued detention is liable to be held illegal. 9. In this view of the matter, the impugned order of detention is set aside. The detenu is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless and until he is required to be detained in connection with any other case. The Habeas Corpus Petition is, thus, allowed.