Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
KRISHNA MURARI, V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.
Pramod Singla – Appellant
Versus
Union of India and Others – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1051 of 2023, Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 10798 of 2022
Decided On : 10-04-2023
(A) Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 – Section 3 – Constitution of India – Article 22(5) – Preventive detention – Gold smuggling – Delay of 60 days in disposal of representation – Both, detaining authority and Government, have worked precisely within procedure established by law and impugned detention order is not liable to be struck down on this ground – However, in cases where illegible documents have been supplied to detenu, grave prejudice is caused to detenu in availing his right to send representation to relevant authorities – Principle of Parity is squarely applicable in this case, since another co-detenu with identical circumstances, has already been granted relief of quashing detention order against him – Impugned detention order set aside. (Paras 38, 39, 43 and 45)
(B) Preventive detention – Preventive detention laws in India are a colonial legacy, and as such, are extremely powerful laws that have ability to confer arbitrary power to State – In such a circumstance, where there is possibility of unfettered discretion of power by Government, this Court must analyze cases arising from such laws with extreme caution and excruciating detail, to ensure that there are checks and balances on power of Government – Every procedural rigidity, must be followed in entirety by Government in cases of preventive detention and every lapse in procedure must give rise to a benefit to case of detenu – Courts, in circumstances of preventive detention, are conferred with duty that has been given utmost importance by Constitution, which is protection of individual and civil liberties – This act of protecting civil liberties, is not just saving of rights of individuals in person and society at large, but is also an act of preserving our Constitutional ethos which is a product of a series of struggles against arbitrary power of British State. (Para 44)
Facts of the case:
Present Appeal is directed against impugned judgment and final order dated 03.11.2022 passed by High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 1205 of 2022 whereby appellant’s plea to quash detention order against him on grounds of delay in considering his representation was denied.
Findings of Court:
While appellant has already been released on grounds of expiry of detention period, for sake of clarity on the point of law, we hold that impugned detention order is liable to be set aside.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
KRISHNA MURARI, J.
1. Leave Granted.
2. The present Appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and final order dated 03.11.2022 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “High Court”) in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 1205 of 2022 whereby the appellant’s plea to quash the detention order against him on grounds of delay in considering his representation was denied.
FACTS
3. Briefly, the facts relevant to the present appeal are that an Intelligence was received by the Respondent that a syndicate comprising of certain Chinese, Taiwanese, and South Korean nationals in association with some Indian Nationals were in the practice of smuggling gold into India through Air Cargo by concealing gold in transformers of electroplating/reworking machines etc.
4. One such cargo was being imported to India in the name of one M/s Healthy Future Leaders Pvt. Ltd. and was likely to arrive at Delhi Cargo Complex in the New Delhi Airport.
5. On 18.11.2021 and 19.11.2021, acting on the said intelligence, the purported consignment was examined by the officers of Respondent No. 4 and 80.126 kgs of 24 carat foreign origin gold was recovered from the said consignment in the form of ‘E’ and ‘I’ shaped plates with a market value of Rs. 39,31,38,219/-.
6. The appellant being a suspect, his shop was checked by DRI officials and 7 pieces of gold weighing 5.409 KGs with a market value of Rs. 2,64,44,680/- was recovered from his premises.
7. The Respondent authority also conducted searches at four different places of the abovementioned syndicate and arrested 4 foreign nationals on grounds of finding incriminating evidence against them.
8. On 20.11.2021, the appellant along with other members of the syndicate was arrested by the officers of respondent no. 4 authority, whereupon they were produced before the Ld. CMM, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi and were subsequently remanded to judicial custody.
9. The appellant then sought for bail before the learned CMM and vide order dated 13.12.2021 he was granted bail.
10. Vide four separate order dated 21.12.2021, all four foreign nationals accused in the said crime were also granted bail by the Ld. CMM and further, vide order dated 21.12.2021, the CMM also granted bail to the co-accused Neeraj Varshney of Indian Origin.
11. Subsequent to the appellant’s release on bail, DRI filed an application in the High Court for incorporating an additional condition in the bail order directing the appellant to appear in the office of DRI every Monday at 11:00 a.m. and the same was granted.
12. On 19.01.2022, the DRI sent a proposal to respondent No. 2 to issue an order of detention under the COFEPOSA Act against the appellant and subsequently respondent No. 2 detaining authority passed the impugned detention order as against the appellant on 01.02.2022. The appellant was then arrested on 04.02.2022 by the DRI.
13. On 24.02.2022 a reference was made to the Central Advisory Board, Delhi High Court, and subsequently, a representation was sent by the appellant to the Respondent No. 2 detaining authority on 02.03.2022 which came to be rejected on 15.03.2022.
14. In the meanwhile, on 10.03.2022, the appellant sent a representation letter to the Central Government, and subsequently on 04.04.2022, he made another representation to the Advisory Board.
15. The hearing before the Advisory board was concluded on 18.04.2022, and on 09.05.2022, the Central Government, on advice from the advisory board after a delay of 60 days rejected the representation.
16. The appellant then filed a writ in the High Court seeking to quash the detention order against him, which came to be dismissed vide impugned order dated 03.11.2022.
17. This Court subsequently, vide order dated 05.01.2023, released the appellant from custody as interim relief due to the demise of his father, and later, due to the expiry of the impugned detenti
(1) Preventive detention – Principle of Parity is squarely applicable in a case where another co-detenu with identical circumstances, has already been granted relief of quashing detention order again....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the delay in deciding the representation by the Central Government did not invalidate the detention order, as the detaining authority had inde....
The court held that delays in executing detention orders are not fatal if justified by circumstances, emphasizing compliance with statutory requirements under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Preve....
Quash of Detention order - Delay in passing detention order - There is nothing in Section 3 of COFEPOSA or in scheme of Act, which suggests that the especially empowered officer must act only on rece....
Quash of Detention order - Delay in passing detention order - There is nothing in Section 3 of COFEPOSA or in scheme of Act, which suggests that the especially empowered officer must act only on rece....
The Detaining Authority must act independently and with an open mind, and should not prejudge the issue even before considering the materials produced before him by the sponsoring authority. There sh....
Preventive detention – When a person is to be detained under provisions of PITNDPS, principle of fairness is warranted – Petitioner should have knowledge of proceedings in known language.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
