IMPORTANT POINT
Non-placement of relevant materials before the detaining authority by the sponsoring authority on representation by detenu vitiates the detention order.

Headnote:(i) Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974-Section 3(1)(i)-Order of detention under-Incident took place on 24-7-2000-Detention order passed after about a lapse of seven months i.e. on 1.3.2001-Whether detention order on the basis of stale incident would arise?-But in view of certain facts Court left it open. (Paras 8 to 13)
       (ii) Constitution of India-Articles 21 and 32-Detention order-Representation-Non-placement of relevant material before detaining authority-Whether rendered the detention order invalid? (Yes)-Writ petition allowed-Detention order quashed.
       Held : On the question of representation, the records depict that the same was sent to the President of India on 10th April, 2001 and the same was sent to the Ministry of Finance on August 16, 2001 - some explanation has been put forth, but we need not, however, detain ourselves in dealing with the same since we wish to state that non-placement of relevant materials before the detaining authority by the sponsoring authority is not only a lapse but a serious lapse on the part of the officials resulting in the order of detention to be declared unlawful and illegal and thus resultantly cannot be sustained. In the view as above, the writ petition succeeds. The detention order stands quashed and set aside. V.C. Mohan son of V. Velayutham be released forthwith. (Paras 16 & 17)

JUDGMENT

Banerjee, J.-While it is true that law Courts detaste the very concept of detention without trial and do not favour the same, but the constitutional sanction of preventive detention cannot in any way be decried having regard to the prevalent conditions - social and economic. The scheme as envisaged by the founding fathers, however, has its rigours as well and subject to the guarantees as enshrined in Part III of the Constitution.

2. Preventive detention admittedly is an invasion of personal liberty and it is a duty cast on to the law Courts to satisfy itself in regard to the circumstances under which such a preventive detention has been ordered - in the event, however, the same does not conform to the requirements of the concept of justice as is available in the justice delivery system of the country, the law Courts would not shirk of its responsibility to provide relief to the person concerned. The guardian-angel of the Constitution stand poised with a responsibility to zealously act as a watchdog so that injustice does not occur: Let us not be understood to mean however that there ought to be any overzealousness since the same may lend assistance to a situation which is otherwise not compatible with social good and benefit.

3. Adverting at this stage to the facts of the matter, as is evident from the present Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, challenging an order of detention dated 1st March, 2001 under Section 3(1)(i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 it appears that the petitioner is presently confined in Central Prison, Chennai, Tamil Nadu and it is this detention which the petitioner contended is without the authority of law and constitute an infringement of his guaranteed fundamental rights.

4. The reason for detention has been and as recorded by the Department is that the Bill of Entry No.235337 dated 19.7.2000 was filed in the name of M/s Goutham Enterprises for clearance of 300 numbers of ACER CD ROM drive 50X by Customs House Agents, M/s Sanjay Forwarders (P) Ltd. According to the Department this Bill of Entry was filed m the name of M/s Goutham Enterprises but the latter expressly intimated the department stating that they did not place any order for import purposes. The department made an investigation and the goods were seized under the provisions of Customs Act on 24.7.2000. The total CIF value according to the department was Rs.43,53,189/- and Rs. 57,87,200/- was the market value.

5. The petitioner appeared before the Customs Department on 24.7.2000 and the officers detained him and obtained the statements and was subsequently arrested on 25.7.2000 for an offence under Sections 132 and 135 of Customs Act. The principal allegation against the petitioner/detenu being misdeclaration in the Bill of Entry. The petitioner/detenu however was remanded to judicial custody on 26.7.2000.

6. Subsequently, the detenu was enlarged on bail by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on 11.8.2000.

7. The Department after the completion of investigation issued a show-cause notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 on 19.9.2000.

8. Significantly, though the incident noticed above took place on 24.7.2000 and other important documents have come into existence immediately thereafter, the detaining authority did not pass the detention order immediately but only after a lapse of about seven months, i.e. on 1.3.2000. During this interregnum, however, the detenu admittedly did not indulge in any illegal activities and it is on this context Mr. Mani, learned advocate appearing in support of the petition with his usual eloquence contended that the incident of 24th July, 2000 had become stale and irrelevant and it is too remote in point of time and as such question of there being any detention order on the basis thereof would not arise. Mr. Mani further contended upon reference to the fact situation as adverted herein before in this

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2002 Supreme(SC) 298

IMPORTANT POINTNon-placement of relevant materials before the detaining authority by the sponsoring authority on representation by detenu vitiates the detention order.

Cases Referred (2)

IMPORTANT POINT
Non-placement of relevant materials before the detaining authority by the sponsoring authority on representation by detenu vitiates the detention order.