1995 JTR(SC) 1228
1996 1 AICLR 3 ; 1996 33 AllCriC 88 ; 1996 CriLR 37 ; 1995 4 Crimes(SC) 782 ; 1995 8 JT 561 ; 1995 6 Scale 732 ; 1996 1 SCC 337 ; 1996 SCC(Cri) 108 ; 1995 Supp5 SCR 737
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 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.
(A) The relevant statutory provisions relating to detention under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities were considered in light of constitutional safeguards under Article 22(5). The impugned order of detention was challenged on the basis of procedural delays and alleged non-compliance with furnishing a copy of the sponsoring authority's report. The High Court relied on these alleged irregularities to set aside the detention order, but the Supreme Court held that such requirements do not attract mandatory constitutional mandates under the specified provisions.
(B) Key legal principles include that the report of the sponsoring authority is not a mandatory requirement under Article 22(5) and is only a material furnished to the detaining authority. Additionally, procedural delays in considering representations, unless explained, do not automatically invalidate an order of detention if all relevant material has been supplied.
Facts of the case:
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. A representation was filed, and after a delay of approximately 23 days, it was considered. The High Court set aside the detention order due to this delay and on the ground that the report of the sponsoring authority was not supplied, which the Supreme Court found insufficient to interfere with the detention order.
Findings of Court:
The Supreme Court held that the High Court was not correct in setting aside the detention order on the grounds of delay and non-supply of the sponsoring authority's report, as it is not mandatory under Article 22(5). The material on which the order of detention was based had been supplied, and the delay was not fatal.
Issues:
Whether the report of the sponsoring authority is mandatory under Article 22(5) of the Constitution.
Whether a delay in considering the representation for about 23 days without explanation vitiates the order of detention.
Ratio Decidendi:
The Supreme Court determined that the non-supply of the sponsoring authority's report does not attract the mandate of Article 22(5) and that the material on which the detention was based was provided. A short delay in disposal of the representation does not invalidate the detention order in the absence of mala fide or prejudice.
Result:
The appeal is disposed of, and the order of the High Court setting aside the detention order is set aside.
(A) The relevant statutory provisions relating to detention under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities were considered in light of constitutional safeguards under Article 22(5). The impugned order of detention was challenged on the basis of procedural delays and alleged non-compliance with furnishing a copy of the sponsoring authority's report. The High Court relied on these alleged irregularities to set aside the detention order, but the Supreme Court held that such requirements do not attract mandatory constitutional mandates under the specified provisions.
(B) Key legal principles include that the report of the sponsoring authority is not a mandatory requirement under Article 22(5) and is only a material furnished to the detaining authority. Additionally, procedural delays in considering representations, unless explained, do not automatically invalidate an order of detention if all relevant material has been supplied.
Facts of the case:
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. A representation was filed, and after a delay of approximately 23 days, it was considered. The High Court set aside the detention order due to this delay and on the ground that the report of the sponsoring authority was not supplied, which the Supreme Court found insufficient to interfere with the detention order.
Findings of Court:
The Supreme Court held that the High Court was not correct in setting aside the detention order on the grounds of delay and non-supply of the sponsoring authority's report, as it is not mandatory under Article 22(5). The material on which the order of detention was based had been supplied, and the delay was not fatal.
Issues:
Whether the report of the sponsoring authority is mandatory under Article 22(5) of the Constitution.
Whether a delay in considering the representation for about 23 days without explanation vitiates the order of detention.
Ratio Decidendi:
The Supreme Court determined that the non-supply of the sponsoring authority's report does not attract the mandate of Article 22(5) and that the material on which the detention was based was provided. A short delay in disposal of the representation does not invalidate the detention order in the absence of mala fide or prejudice.
Result:
The appeal is disposed of, and the order of the High Court setting aside the detention order is set aside.
A.S.PUNDIR
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