AHAMED NASSAR versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS.

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 657 · Decided: 14-10-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

AHAMED NASSAR 
v. 
STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 14, 1999 
(KT. THOMAS AND A.P. MISRA, JJ.] 
Criminal Law: 
Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Ac-
tivities" Act, 1974: 
Section 3: 
Preventive Detention-Appropriate authority-Representation before--
Disposal of-Delay in-Sponsoring authority took two days' time in sending 
A 
B 
c 
his comments-'-Held : Delay not to be assessed on the yardstick of number D 
of days-ln a given case even a few days' delay may be fatal while in another 
set of circumstances a longer delay may still be held to be for valid 
reasons-'-However, there should be no unexplained delay or delay through 
carelessness-ln the circumstances of the case, two days' delay is not undue 
delay. 
Preventive Deten~ion-Appropriate authority-Representation before-
Communication-Mode of-Speed post-Delay in-Sponsoring authority's 
comments .took three days' time in reaching Central Government-Held : 
Speed post is a reasonable mode of communication-Delay is attributable to 
vagaries or inefficiency of postal or communication agencies and not due to 
Government apathy or negligence-Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 22(5). 
Preventive Detention-Appropriate authority-Representation before-
Communication-Delay in-Held: Detenu has no right to force representation 
to be sent through special messenger by air. 
E 
F 
Preventive Detention-Detention orde~Relevant material-Non-place-
G 
• ment of-Before detaining authority---Subjective satisfaction of-Effect-Held: 
... Every conceivable material which is relevant must be placed before the 
detaining authority---Such materials must be considered by the detaining 
,· 
authority-Non- consideratrion of the same vitiates the detention orde~The 
date of issuance of fonnal order of detention is the relevant date upto which H 
657 
658 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A relevant material has to be placed before the detaining authority. 
Preventive Detention-Detention order-Relevant material-Non-place-
ment of-Before detaining authority-Subjective satisfaction of-Two letters, 
one written by detenu awl the other by his advocate, not placed before the 
detaining autho1ity-Detenu 's letter related to retraction of his confession 
B which was also recorded in his bail application-Detenu 's letter also men-
tioned that the seized goods were 11on-p10hibited goods for which he offered 
to pay the duty but still he was arrested-Effect-Held : Non-consideration of 
the first part of detenu's letter is acceptabl~But second pmt is detenu's stand 
011 men'ts which is relevant-Hence, non-placement of the two letters before 
C the detaining authority vitiates the detention order. 
Preventive Detention-Detention order-Detenu in jail-Bail applica-
tion rejected-Likelihood of detenu being released on bail---Detaining 
authority-Subjective satisfaction of~Held : Can be arrived at by looking to 
the contents of the bail application, although rejected, and also the Constitu-
D tional Scheme, Preamble, Objects and Reasons of the Act. 
Preventive Detention LaYir-lnterpretation of-Held : Should be strictly 
construed since it takes away one's liberty-But it should also be seen that no 
person who acts against the national interest is allowed to escap~Where two 
E -interpretations are possible, the one which subserves the objects of the preven-
tive detention statute should be preferred-More so, when the credibility of the 
statutory acts performed by statutory functionaries are to be scrntinized and 
tested. 
F 
Interpretation of Statutes: 
Interpretation-Basic Principl&-lf there are two possible interpreta-
tions, the one which subserves the objective of the statute should be accepted. 
Words and Phrases : 
G 
"Expeditious disposal" and "likely to be releqsed"-Meaning of 
The petitioner-detenu was detained under Section 3(1)(i) of the 
Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities 
Act, 1974. The detenu sent his representation on 21.5.1999 which was 
received by the Central Government on 25.5.1999 and on the same day 
H comments were called from the sponsoring authority. The sponsoring 
AHAMED NASSAR v. STATE 
659 
authority sent reply on 28.5.1999, which was received by the Central A 
Government on 1.6.1999, which called for the comments of the detaining 
authority. The detaining authority sent the comments on 10.6.1999, which 
was received by the Central Government on 14.6.1999. On 15.6.1999 it was 
s11bmitted to the Special Sec

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