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

1979 Supreme(Kar) 123

Karnataka High Court
R.PRAKASH - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA - Respondent
Decided On : 06-22-79
W.P. : 5564 of 1979

Advocates:
J.JESHTAMAL, R.N.BYRA REDDY

The detention order must conform to the provisions of the act, and vital and material facts must be considered by the Detaining Authority to ensure the validity of the detention.

Headnote:

habeas Constitution - validity of detention - Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 - S. 3(1) - S. 11B, S. 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 - the court discussed the validity of the detention order under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, and the interpretation of clauses (iii) and (iv) of S. 3(1) in relation to engaging in transporting, concealing, keeping, and dealing in smuggled goods.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged the validity of the detention order passed by the State Government under S. 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, based on the grounds of stale incidents and lack of conformity with the provisions of the act.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the grounds for detention were stale and lacked nexus with the purpose of detention. It also held that the detention order was not in conformity with the provisions of the act and that vital and material facts were not placed before the Detaining Authority.

Issues: Staleness of grounds for detention, conformity with the provisions of the act, consideration of vital and material facts by the Detaining Authority.

Ratio Decidendi: The detention order must be in conformity with the provisions of the act, and vital and material facts must be considered by the Detaining Authority. Stale grounds for detention and lack of nexus with the purpose of detention render the detention order invalid.

Final Decision: The rule was made absolute, and the order of detention was quashed with a direction for the immediate release of the detenu R. Sathydass.

( 1 ) THIS is a petition for writ of habeas Constitution challenging the validity of corpus under Art. 226 (1) (a) of the the order of detention of the brother of the petitioner R. Sathyadas passed by the state Government under sub-section (1) of S. 3 of the Conservation of Foreign exchange and Prevention of Smuggling activities Act, 1974 (called shortly as 'the act' ).

( 2 ) THE case involves the personal liberty of a citizen which is one of the cherished fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution which the courts of this country have always jealously protected against arbitrary invasion.

( 3 ) THE facts are these : the State Government by order dated 15th May 1979 made an order as follows :-"whereas the Government of Karnataka are satisfied with respect to the person known as Shri R. Satya Das, s/o late V. Raman Nair, No. 649, Jain street, Mandya that with a view to preventing him from keeping smuggled goods, it is necessary to make the following order : now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by S. 3 (1) of the conservation of Foreign Exchange and prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, the Government of Karnataka direct that the said Shri R. Satya Das, be detained and kept in custody in the central Prison, Bangalore. By order and in the name of the governor of Karnataka. (Sd/- V. Venugopal Naidu) commissioner for Home Affairs and secretary to Government Home Dept. "the grounds of detention are :" (1) You are doing business in the business premises in the name and style of M/s. Prakash and Brothers, Jain St. , mandya. The Inspector of Central excise, Preventive, IDO Mysore, searched the premises of the said shop on 13-1-1977 and seized smuggled goods, viz. , Wrist Watches, Photographic film rolls, Casette tapes, Cosmetics, etc. collectively valued at Rs. 830/ -. Watches and cosmetics are notified under s. II B of the Customs Act, 1962 and also specified under S. 123 of the Customs act, 1962. In your statement given before the Customs Officers, dated 13-1 -1977 you stated inter-alia that the shop belonged to your brother Prakash and since Prakash had been out of station for 21/2 months, you were responsible for all the transactions in the said shop; that these goods were purchased long back and the bills were not available with you, that the watch, casette tapes were for personal use and remaining goods were kept for sale. The case was adjudicated by the Superintendent of Central Excise (Technical) ido, Mysore, vide order No. VIII/ 10-2-77-Customs dated 28-2-1977. All the smuggled goods seized were absolutely confiscated and a penalty of rs. 100/- was imposed on you. The same has been paid by you. (2) On 21-7-1977 the Inspector of central Excise, Preventive, IDO, mysore, searched the premises of M/s. Prakash and Brothers, Jain Street, mandya. At the time of search you were present in the shop premises. Search resulted in the seizere of smuggled goods namely, wrist watches, blades, cigarettes, casettes, etc. totally valued at Rs. 1,535/ -. Watches, cigarettes, adjustable safety razors with blades, cosmetics, cigarettes, Cigarette lighters, fountain pens, casette tapes are notified under S. 11 B of the Customs Act, 1962 and watches, cosmetics, lighters, safety razor blades, cigarettes are specified under S. 123 of the Customs Act, 1962. You in your statement dated 21-7-1977 given before the Inspector of Central excise, Mysore, inter alia, stated that you and your brother Shri Prakash were looking after the business of M/s. Prakash and Brothers, that you did not possess any documents or bills for sale and you got little profit out of the sale; that the said goods were purchased from some Keralites; that you knew that it was an offence to deal in smuggled goods; that you had been involved earlier in a case and had paid the penalty imposed on you. The case was adjudicated on 21-10-1977 by the superintendent of Central Excise, ('technical) IDO, Mysore, vide order no. C. No. VIII/10/21/77-Cus. All the smugg















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