LexABDU SALAM @THIYYAN S/O THIYYAN MOHAMMAD, DETENU NO. 962, GENERAL PRISON, TRIVENDRUM versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
ABDU SALAM @THIYYAN S/0 THIYYAN MOHhMMAD, - DETENU NO. 962, GENERAL PRISON, TRIVENDRUM A V. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ------· APRIL 17, 1990 B [S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN AND K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, JJ.] ~ Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act-Section 3( ])-Detention order-Mere delay in arresting ,...,. aetenu-Whether casts doubt on the genuineness of the subjective c satisfaction of the detaining authority-Delay in making the detention - order and disposal of representation by the Central Government- ... , Whether fatal. -#./ The appellant after his Haj pilgrimage bad been to Jeddah and from Jeddab he landed in Bombay on 15.9 .1987. Thereafter he boarded D a bns to go to his native place in Kerala. On 17.9.1987, the Cnstoms authorities intercepted the bus wherein the petitioner was travelling and in the presence of the pancb witnesses, searched his person and the cbappals worn by him. On opening the cbappals about 13 ·gold ingots with foreign markings were found and they were duly recovered. 'Ibe appellant confessed that he was introduced to a person who promised 'to E ~· give him remuneration for carrying the gold to India and that is bow be brought those gold biscuits. The· detaining authority passed the deten- tion order against the appellant on 21.9.1988, and grounds of detention were served on him within time and he was informed that if be so desired he could make a representation to the Advisory Board, and also that be could make a representation to the detaining authority or the F - ..... Central Government. The appellant challenged his detention by meallS of a writ petition in the High Court and the same having been dismissed, ;>.- be bas filed this appeal after obtaining special leave. The appellant ' urged: (i) that the delay in making the detention order and 'the dispOsal of his representation by the Central Government are fatal and violative of Article 22(5) of the Constitution oflndia; and (ii) that the delay in G arresting him pursuant to the detention order casts a doubt on ·the genuineness of the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. Dismissing the appeal, this Court, ·- HELD: Delay ipso facto in passing an order of detention after an fl 517 518 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1990] 2 S.C.R. A incident is not fatal to the detention of a person. In this case the delay by itself does not invalidate the detention but even otherwise it has been reasonably explained. [524G] B From the explanation it can be seen that the representation was considered most expeditiously and there is no "negligence or callous inaction or avoidable red-tapism". [523C] It can therefore be seen that on the mere delay in arresting the ljetenu pursuant to the order of detention the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority cannot be held to be not genuine. Each case depends on its own facts and circumstances. The Court has to see c whether the delay is explained reasonably. In the instant case, this Court is satisfied with the explanation for the delay in arresting the detenu. [525G-H] Khudiram Das v.The State of West Bengal & Ors., [1975] 2 S.C.C. 81; Tara Chand v. State of Rajasthan, [1980) 2 S.C.C. 321; D Sh yam Ambalal Siroya v. Union of India & Ors., [1980) 2 S.C.R. 1078; Sabir Ahmed v.Union of India & Ors., [1980] 3 SCR 738; Rama Dhondu Borade v. V. K. Saraf; Commissioner of Police & Ors., [1989] 3 S.C.C. 173; T.A. Abdul Rahman v. State of Kera/a & Ors., [1989] 4 S.C.C. 741; Lakshman Khatik v. The State of West Bengal, [1974) 4 S.C.C. I; Rajendrakumar Natvarlal Shah v. State of Gujarat & Ors., E [1988] 3 S.C.C. 153; Yogendra Murari v. State of UP., [1988) 4 S.C.C. 558; Hemlata Kantilal Shah v. State of Maharashtra, [1981) 4-S.C.C. 647 and SK. Serajul v. State of West Bengal, [1975) 2 S.C.C. 7s, referred to. F G CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 271of1990. From the Judgment and Order dated 16.1.1989 of the Delhi High Court in Criminal Writ No. 34 of 1989. K. V. Vishwanathan and S.R. Selia for the Appellant. T.T. Kunhikanna, Udai La.tit and P. Parmeshwaran for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by H K .. TAYACHANDRAREDDY,J. Leavegranted. ABDU SALAM v. U.0.L (REDDY, J.] 519 This is an appeal seeking a writ of habeas corpus. The appellant who has beert detained under Section 3(1)(i) and 3(1)(iii) of .the COFEPOSA Act, 1974, has chi!llenged the detenti
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.