SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1985 Supreme(SC) 391

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.N. Bhagwati, CJI., R.S. PATHAK, J.
Shri Shiv Ratan Makim, Petitioner
Versus
Union of India, others, Resopondents.
Writ Petn.(Cri) No.1122 of 1985
 Decided on 16-12-1985.

Advocates:
A.K.NAG, K.D.PRASAD, N.C.TALUKDAR, R.N.Poddar, SOLI J.SORABJI

Headnote:

Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 – Section 3 – Praying for revocation of order - Habeas corpus - Writ petition filed by the petitioner for a writ of habeas corpus praying for revocation of the order of detention passed by respondent No. 2, Joint Secretary to the Government of India, against the petitioner under Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 – Court heard the writ petition and after hearing the arguments advanced on both sides, we passed an order on the same date dismissing the writ petition – Court now proceed, to give our reasons for making that order –Held, Last ground urged on behalf of the petitioner is also equally without substance – Contention of the petitioner was that criminal prosecution cannot be circumvented or short-circuited by ready resort to preventive detention and the power of detention cannot be used to subvert, supplant or substitute the punitive law of the land – Petitioner urged that no material has been disclosed by the respondents to establish the existence of any exceptional reasons which would justify recourse to preventive detention in the present case such as witnesses being afraid to depose against the detenu in Court or other genuine difficulties in bringing the culprits to book in a criminal Court under the ordinary law of the land and in the absence of such reasons before the detaining authority, it was not competent to the detaining authority to make the order of detention bypassing the criminal prosecution – Argument completely overlooks the fact that the object of making an order of detention is preventive while the object of a criminal prosecution is punitive – Jurisdiction is different from that of judicial trial in Courts for offences and of judicial orders for prevention of offences – Even unsuccessful judicial trial or proceeding would therefore not operate as a bar to a detention order or render it mala fide" – If the failure of the criminal prosecution can be no bar to the making of an order of detention, a fortiori the were fact that a criminal prosecution can be instituted cannot operate as a bar against the making of an order of detention – Petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT

BHAGWATI, C.J.I. :— This is a writ petition filed by the petitioner for a writ of habeas corpus praying for revocation of the order of detention dated 11th April 1985 passed by respondent No. 2, Joint Secretary to the Government of India, against the petitioner under Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as COFEPOSA Act). We heard the writ petition on 18th September 1985 and after hearing the arguments advanced on both sides, we passed an order on the same date dismissing the writ petition. We now proceed, to give our reasons for making that order.

2. On the basis of information received by them, the Customs Officers at Panitanki Land Customs Station intercepted an auto-rickshaw bearing No. WGY-9854 coming from Nepal at about 8 a.m. in the morning of 20th November 1984. There were four occupants in the auto-rickshaw, namely, the petitioner, Raj Kumar Gupta, Prem Prasad Bothari, and Akadeshi Bahadur. These four occupants as well as the driver of the auto-rickshaw were searched by the Customs Officers in the presence of independent witnesses and as a result of the search, no contraband goods were found in the possession of the other three occupants and the driver of the auto-rickshaw but from the pocket of the trousers worn by the petitioner, two pieces of foreign marked gold in the shape of round tablets weighing 373.800 gms. and valued at Rs. 74760/- were recovered and they were seized under the Customs Act. The petitioner was immediately arrested and on interrogation, he filed a written statement on the same day stating that he had been unemployed for a long time and that he was introduced in the business of purchase and sale of foreign marked gold by one Prakash Pincha and that on 16th November 1984, he left Kathiar by bus and arrived in Kathmandu at 6 a.m. on 18th November 1984 and stayed at Kanji Lodge in Kathmandu and as per prior arrangement, he contacted one Dena Lal Aggarwal on Telephone No. 344889 and Dena Lal Aggarwal thereupon came to Kanji Lodge along with the requisite quantity of gold and he took delivery of gold from Dena Lal Aggarwal and paid him Rs. 70400/- in Indian currency and thereafter he left Kathmandu at 1800 hrs. on 19th November 1984 reaching Kakarbatha opposite Panitanki Land Customs Station at 7.30 a.m. on 20th November 1984 and boarded auto-rickshaw bearting No. WGY-9854 which later on picked up the other passengers and ultimately the auto-rickshaw was intercepted and he was searched resulting in the seizure of two pieces of foreign marked gold which were in the pocket of his trousers. The petitioner was produced before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Siliguri on 21st November 1984, and on an application made by him, he was released on bail by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate on 5th December 1984. The second respondent who is the Joint Secretary to the. Government of India thereafter passed an order dated 11th April 1985 under Section 3 of COFEPOSA Act directing that the petitioner be detained and kept in custody in the Central Jail, Patna. The order of detention recited that it was passed with a view to preventing the petitioner from smuggling goods. The grounds on which the order of detention was based were supplied to the petitioner immediately on his arrest under the order of detention. The petitioner made a representation dated 17th May 1985 against the order of detention but the representation was rejected by the Central Government on 23rd May 1985. The case of the petitioner was placed before the Advisory Board which gave the opinion that there was sufficient cause for the detention of the petitioner and on receipt of this opinion of the Advisory Board, the Central Government by an order dated 6th June 1985 confirmed the order of detention and directed that the petitioner be detained for a period of one year from the date of his detention, namely, 23rd April 1985. The petitioner thereu







Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top