A. SOWKATH ALI versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 48 · Decided: 01-08-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AJAY PRAKASH MISRA · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
A. SOWKATH ALI 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
AUGUST I, 2000 
[A.P. MISRA AND N. SANTOSH HEGDE, JJ.] 
Criminal Law : 
Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activi-
t~ Act, 1974 : 
Sections 3(i) and (ii)-Preventive Detention-Subjective satisfaction of-
Relevant documents-Placing of-Before detaining authority-Sponsoring 
authority placed the confessional statements of co-accused before the detaining 
authority based on which detention order was passed against them-Detention 
order of petitioner-detenu was passed by the same detaining authority which 
was based on the said confessional statements-However, retraction statements 
of the co-accused not placed be.fore the detaining authority-Held: All relevant 
documents having a bearing on the issue and which may affect the mind of the 
detaining authority must be placed be.fare it-The confessional statements and 
the retraction, both constituting a composite relevant fact, should have been 
placed before the detaining authority-No presumption that the detaining 
authority, being the same in both cases, is aware of the retraction can be drawn 
especially when the gap between the two detention orders is more than 5 
months-Hence, non-placing of the retraction statements before the detaining 
authority vitiates the detention order. 
F 
Section 5-A-Grounds-Severability of-Applicability-Held : 
G 
Applicable when detention order is based on more than one ground-Where 
the detention order is based on one composite ground only S.5-A not 
applicable. 
Customs Officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence inter-
cepted two passengers P and I at the airport. On a search of both the 
persons foreign currencies and travelling cheques of large amount were 
recovered from both of them. Later one S was apprehended and his 
statement was recorded. This statement implicated the petitioner-detenue 
which descrihed how he had concealed the foreign currencies in chappals 
H 
and condoms and attempted to send the same out of India through the 
48 
-
.... 
A. SOWKATH ALI v. U.0.1. 
49 
aforesaid P and I. The detenue wlls arrested on the basis of his confessional 
A 
statement while he was already a remand prisoner. 
The dete.ition order against the petitioner under Sections 3(i) and 
(ii) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smug-
gling Activities Act, 1974 was passed by the same detaining authority 
after a gap of 5 months. In the grounds of detention, not only was there 
reference of two co-accused persons but the confessional statement of 
both the said two co-accused were exhaustively recorded in the grounds of 
detention. The grounds of detention showed the link of the petitioner with 
B 
the said two co-accused and inference adversely was drawn against the 
detenu based on their confessional statements. The grounds made it abso-
C 
lutely clear that the State Government had taken into consideration and 
relied upon, all the facts and material referred to in the ground of deten-
tion. 
The petitioner-detenu filed a petition before this Court challenging 
his detention on the grounds that the sponsoring authority placed the 
confessional statement of P and I before the detaining authority but did 
not place their retractions from the said confession; and that this being a 
vital document, having a bearing on the issue of detention of the peti-
tioner and which was likely to affect the mind of the detaining authority, 
its non-placement invalidated the detention order passed against the 
detenu. 
Allowing the petition, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. It was not necessary, while considering the case of the 
petitioner-detenu, to place all or any of the documents which are relevant 
and are relied on in the proceedings of a co-accused but where the sponsor-
ing authority opts out of his own volition to place any document of the 
other co-accused detenu, not merely as a narration of fact but reiterating 
in detail the confession made by him, then it cannot be said it would not 
prejudice the case of the detenu. H this has been done it was incumbent 
for the sponsoring authority to have placed their retraction also. The 
confessional statement and the retraction, both constituting a composite 
relevant fact, should have been placed. If any one of the two documents 
alone is placed, without the other, it would affect the subjective satisfaction 
of the detaining authority. Therefore, non-placement of the retraction 
D 
E 
F 
G 
affects the 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.