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

2014 Supreme(SC) 296

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD & PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, JJ.
Licil Antony – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala & Another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 872 of 2014 (@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 988 of 2014)
Decided On : 15-04-2014

IMPORTANT POINT
Delay in passing order of detention, if explained, is not illegal.

Headnote:(a) Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 – Section 3 – Detention – Delay in passing order – Delay explained – Detention not vitiated – Delay in making of an order of detention and delay in complying with procedural safeguards enshrined under Article 22(5) of the Constitution – Distinction stressed. (Para 11)

       (2006) 11 SCC 339; (1990) 2 SCC 1 – Relied upon

       (b) Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 – Section 7 – Order of detention dated 6th of May, 2013 – Served on 11th of June, 2013 by ordinary process – Section 7 applies only when order of detention is not served through the ordinary process – No infirmity. (Para 12)

       (c) Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 – Section 3 – Order of detention passed in ignorance of bail order passed by a court in Andhra Pradesh – Omission not affecting subjective satisfaction of Detaining Authority. (Para 14)

       Facts of the case:

       The appellant’s husband Antony Morris, the detenu, was arrested on 17th of November, 2012 by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence on the allegation that he intended to export red sanders through International Container Trans-shipment Terminal. He was released on bail.

       The detaining authority took decision on 15th of April, 2013 to detain the detenu and two others and he passed order of detention dated 6th of May, 2013.

       The detenu was produced before the Advisory Board, which found sufficient grounds for his continued detention and, accordingly, the detaining authority issued order dated 24th of August, 2013, and confirmed the order of detention for a period of one year with effect from 11th of June, 2013, the date of detention.

       The appellant challenged her husband’s detention before the High Court in a writ petition. By the impugned order the same has been dismissed.

       Finding of the Court:

       There is no error in the order of detention and the order passed by the High Court.

       Result: Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT

Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, J. –

Petitioner Licil Antony happens to be the wife of detenu Antony Morris and aggrieved by the order dated 6th of November, 2013 passed by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 412 of 2013 declining to quash the order of detention passed under Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, hereinafter referred to as “COFEPOSA”, has preferred this special leave petition.

2. Leave granted.

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on the allegation that the appellant’s husband Antony Morris, hereinafter referred to as the detenu, intended to export red sanders through International Container Trans-shipment Terminal, was arrested on 17th of November, 2012 by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence and a case was registered against him. He was released on bail by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Ernakulam. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, hereinafter referred to as ‘DRI’, by its letter dated 17th of December, 2012 made recommendation for the detenu’s detention besides two others under Section 3 of the COFEPOSA alleging that they are part of a well-organised gang operating in smuggling of red sanders in India and abroad. The proposals of the DRI, hereinafter referred to as the sponsoring authority, were received in the office of the detaining authority on 21st of December, 2012. The detaining authority after scrutiny and evaluation of the proposals and the documents, decided on 25th of January, 2013 to place the proposals before the screening committee and forwarded the same to it on 1st of February, 2013. The proposals of the detenu’s detention along with two others were considered by the screening committee which concurred with the recommendation of the sponsoring authority. The detaining authority considered the facts and circumstances of the case as also the reports of the sponsoring authority and the screening committee and other materials running over 1000 pages and took decision on 15th of April, 2013 to detain the detenu and two others. Draft grounds for detention in English were approved on 19th of April, 2013 and as one of the detenue was a Tamilian, time till 3rd of May, 2013 was taken for translation of the documents relied on in Malyalam and Tamil and for preparation of sufficient number of copies. Ultimately, with a view to prevent the detenu from engaging in the smuggling of goods, the detaining authority passed order of detention dated 6th of May, 2013. It was served on the detenu on 11th of June, 2013. The grounds of detention dated 8th of May, 2013 were made available to the detenu on 13th of June, 2013. The detenu was produced before the Advisory Board, which found sufficient grounds for his continued detention and, accordingly, the detaining authority is. sued order dated 24th of August, 2013, and confirmed the order of detention for a period of one year with effect from 11th of June, 2013, the date of detention.

4. It is relevant here to state that detenu was earlier arrested in connection with Kallur Police Station FIR No.57 of 2012 under Section 29 and 32 of A.P. Forest Act, 1937; Section 29 of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972; Section 55(2) of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002; Rule 3 of the A.P. Sandalwood and Red Sanders Wood Transit Rules, 1969 and Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Pakala by order dated 30th of November, 2012 released him on bail and while doing so directed him to appear before the concerned police station on specified days.

5. The appellant challenged her husband’s detention before the High Court in a writ petition. By the impugned order the same has been dismissed.

6. Mr. Raghenth Basant, learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is inordinate delay in passing the order of detention and that itself vitiates the same. He points out that the last prejudicial act
























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