SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. RANGANATHAN AND K.N. SAIKIA, JJ.
M. AHAMEDKUTTY
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER.
Criminal Appeal No. 49 of 1990 decided on January 31,1990
Advocates appeared :
S.R. Setia, C.S. Vaidyanathan and K.V. Viswanathan, Advocates, for the Appellant; V.C. Mahajan, Senior Advocate (Ms Sushma Suri, P. Parmeshwaran, A.K. Srivastava and T.T. Kunnikanan, Advocates, with him) for the Respondents.
Held: (after discussing case law) applying the law enunciated and settled by the foregoing decisions we are of the view that in this case, considering the given explanation of the period in between the interception on 30-1-1988 and the order of detention on 25-6-1988 the nexus was not snapped and the ground was not rendered stale and the order of detention was not rendered invalid thereby. The submission is accordingly rejected.
(Para 10)
(ii) COFEPOSA Act, 1974-Section 3(1) - Detention order -Challenged on ground that there was inordinate and unexplained delay of 38 days in execution of detention order- Delay explained due to lack of coordination between detaining authority and those entrusted with execution of detention order - Whether be accepted? (Yes, as a special case)
(Para 16)
(iii) COFEPOSA Act, 1974 - Section 3 (1)- Detention order- Challenged on ground of seizure of detenus passport- Fact that it would not be possible for detenu to travel abroad and do smuggling -Whether shows non-application of mind? (No)
Held: We see no force in this contention. This was no doubt one of the factors that the detaining authority should have taken (and did in fact take) into account but it was for him to assess the weight to attached to such a circumstance in arriving at his final decision and it is not open to us to interfere with the merits of his decision. We, therefore, reject this contention of Mr. Vaidyanathan.
(Para 17)
(iv) COFEPOSA Act, 1974 – Section 3(1) - Constitution of India - Art 22 (5) Detention order challenged on ground of non placing of copies of Bail application - Bail order before detaining authority - Non supplied to detenu - Whether vitiates order of detention? (Yes).
Held: Considering the facts in the instant case, the bail application and the bail order were vital materials for consideration. If those were not considered the satisfaction of the detaining authority itself would have been impaired, and if those had been considered, they would be documents relied on by the detaining authority though not specifically mentioned in the annexure to the order of detention and those ought to have formed part of the documents supplied to the detenu with the grounds of detention and without them the grounds themselves could not be said to have been complete. We have, therefore, no alternative but to hold that it amounted to denial of the detenu’s right to make an effective representation and that it resulted in violation of Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India rendering the continued detention of the detenu illegal and entitling the detenu to be set at liberty in this case. (Para 26)
(v) COFEPOSA Act, 1974 - Section 9(1) - Order of declaration - Challenged as bad - Left open. (Paras 27 to 31)
Judgment
K.N. SAIKIA, J.- Special leave granted.
2. After the appellant landed at Trivandrum Airport from Abu Dhabi, he was intercepted by the customs officials detecting that he smuggled 13 gold sheets weighing 1280 gms. valued at Rs 4,26,240 concealed inside the plywood panels of his blue suitcase which was seized along with his two passports, old and new. He was arrested on January 31, 1988 and was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences) Ernakulam who remanded him to judicial custody till February 12, 1988. On February 12, 1988 he was granted bail on condition, inter alia, that he would report before the Superintendent (Intelligence) Air Customs, Trivandrum on every Wednesday until further orders, and that he would not change his residence without prior permission of court to "February 25, 1988." The impugned detention order dated June 25, 1988 was passed by the Home Secretary, Government of Kerala. It stated that the Government of Kerala was satisfied with respect to the appellant that with a view to preventing him from smuggling gold it was necessary to detain him and, therefore, in exercise of powers conferred by Section 3(l)(i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (Central Act 52 of 1974), hereinafter referred to as the COFEPOSA Act, the Government of Kerala directed that he be detained and kept in custody in the Central Prison, Trivandrum. The grounds of detention, which were also served, inter alia, gave the details as to how the smuggled gold was detected in his possession having been smuggled into India in violation of the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 and Import and Export Control Act, 1947; what were his statements at the time of seizure of his blue suitcase, his new and old passports and the air ticket used for the journey from Dubai to Trivandrum and the return open air ticket from Bombay to Abu Dhabi; and the gist of his statements given on January 30/31, 1988 under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 before the Intelligence Superintendent, Air Customs, Trivandrum. It was also stated that after his arrest on January 31,1988 he was produced before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences) Ernakulam on the same date and he was remanded to judicial custody and was subsequently released on bail; and that even though the departmental adjudication and persecution proceedings under Customs Act were pending against him, the detaining authority was satisfied that he should be detained under Section 3(l)(i) of the COFEPOSA Act with a view to prevent him from smuggling gold to Trivandrum. On August 23, 1988 the appropriate authority declared that he was satisfied that the detenu was likely to smuggle goods into and through Trivandrum Airport which was an area highly vulnerable to smuggling as defined in Explanation 1 to Section 9(1) of the COFEPOSA Act. On September 24, 1988, the detenu appeared before the Advisory Board which reported that there was sufficient cause for his detention.
3. The detenu challenged his detention moving a habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 CrPC in the-High Court of Delhi and the same having been dismissed in limine the appellant appeals therefrom by special leave. In para 11 of the special leave petition it has been stated that the various grounds urged in the writ petition before the High Court have also been added in this petition and the writ petition itself has been annexed as volume II to the special leave petition.
4. The main grounds on which the detention order is being challenged by the learned counsel for the appellant Mr C.S. Vaidyanathan, inter alia, are that after the event there was inordinate delay in passing the detention order which showed that there was no genuine need for detention of the appellant; that there was inordinate and unexplained delay of 38 days in execution of the deten
Union of India v. Manoharlal Narang
S. Gurdip Singh v. Union of India
Shalini Soni v. Union of India
distinguished : Harisdas Amarchand Shah v. K.L. Verma
referred to : Madhu Khanna v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi
relied on : Mangalbhai Motiram Patel v. State of Maharashtra
Ramachandra. Karnal v. Union of India
Frances Coralie Mullin v. W.C. Khambra
Ichhu Devi Choraria v. Union of India
Pritam Nath Hoon v. Union of India
Tushar Thakker v. Union of India
Lallubhai lopbhai Patel v. Union of India
Kirit Kumar Chaman Lal KundaBya v. Union of India
Mehnmissa v. State of Maharashtra
Mohd. Zaiar v. Delhi Administration
Khudiram DOS v. State of West Bengal
Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate, Etah
State of U.P. v. Karnal Kishore Saini
relied on : Ashok Narain v. Union of India
Rekhaben Virendra Kapadw v. State of Gujarat
Sheikh State v. State of West Bengal
Rajendrahmar Natvarlal Shah v. State of Gujarat
Olia Mallick v. State of West Bengal
Gotam Hussain v. Commissioner of Police
Odut Ali Miah v. State of West Bengal
Vijay Narain Singh v. State of Bihar
Raj Kufhar Singh v. State of Bihar
Hemlata KantUal Shah v. State of Maharashtra
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.