1. Detention under Section 3(1)(iii) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act — Challenge to detention order. (Para 3 )
Back
Next 
1995 Supreme(SC) 1228
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and S.B. Majmudar, JJ.
State of U.P. - Appellant
versus
Shakeel Ahmed - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1577 of 1995
Decided on 28-11-1995
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
It is not mandatory that the report of the sponsoring authority should he supplied to the detenu under Art. 22(5) of the Constitution.
It is not mandatory that the report of the sponsoring authority should he supplied to the detenu under Art. 22(5) of the Constitution.
Subject
Detention - Validity of Detention Order
Act Referred
Headnote
Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act - Section 3(1) (iii) - Detention order under - Set aside by High Court on two grounds (1) delays of 23 days in consideration of representation of detenu and (2) non-supply of the report of the sponsoring authority to detenu - Both grounds found unwarranted - Supply of report was not mandatory and the delay was not fatal - But the order was not disturbed since the period had already expired and the Supreme Court thought that it is not a case warranting further detention of the respondent (Paras 3 & 4) (Cross Ref: Constitution of India - Art. 22(5).
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
A.S.PUNDIR
A.S.PUNDIR
Table of Contents
2. Whether non-supply of sponsoring authority's report violates Article 22(5) of the Constitution and whether unexplained delay in considering representation vitiates detention. (Para 3 )
3. Sponsoring authority's report is material for the detaining authority, not mandatory for the detenu; short delay in disposing of a representation is not fatal. (Para 3 )
4. Supply of the sponsoring authority's report to the detenu is not mandatory under Article 22(5) of the Constitution. (Para 3 )
5. High Court order set aside; however, no further detention ordered as the detention period had already expired. (Para 4 , 5 )
6. Is the report of the sponsoring authority required to be supplied to the detenu under Article 22(5) of the Constitution?
No, it is not mandatory to supply the report of the sponsoring authority to the detenu under Article 22(5) of the Constitution, as it is merely material furnished to the detaining authority. (Para 3 )
7. Does a short delay in the disposal of a representation against a detention order necessarily invalidate the detention?
Not necessarily; a short delay, such as approximately 23 days in the disposal of a representation, is not considered fatal to the validity of the detention order. (Para 3 )
ORDER
K. Ramaswamy, J. - Though the respondent has been served, he does not appear either in person or through counsel. Notice is sufficient.
2. Leave granted.
3. The respondent was detained on July 31, 1989 under Section 3 (1) (iii) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act. When he challenged the order of detention. the High Court in the impugned order dated July 25, 1990 made in W.P. No. 2029 of 1990 set aside the order of detention on the ground that the delay in non-consideration of the representation for one month, i.e., from February 20, 1990 to March 15, 1990, was not explained and also on the ground that copy of the report of the sponsoring authority had not been supplied to the detenu which violates Article 22(5) of the Constitution. We are of the opinion that the High Court was not right in setting aside the order of detention on these grounds. It is not mandatory that the report of the sponsoring authority should be supplied to the detenu under Article 22(5) of the Constitution. It is only a material furnished to the detaining authority. All the material on which reliance was placed for order of detention was admittedly supplied to the detenu. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the delay in disposal of the representation of about 23 days also is not fatal.
4. Under these circumstances, the order of the High Court setting aside the detention order is clearly illegal. However, since the period has already expired, we do not think that it is a case warranting further detention of the respondent.
5. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
Order accordingly.
For Citation : (1996) 1 SCC 337 = 1996 SCC (Crl.) 108
