FRANCES CORALIE MULLIN versus W. C. KHAMBRA & ORS.

Citation: [1980] 2 S.C.R. 1095 · Decided: 27-02-1980 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. SARKARIA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 7 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
\ 
' 1 
I 
' 
• 
1095 
FRANCES CORALIE MULLIN 
v. 
W. C. KHAMBRA & ORS. 
February 27, 1980 
[R. S. SARKARIA AND 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ.J 
Con.~titution of India 1950, Art 22(5) & Conserration of Foreign Exchange 
and Prevenfi911 of S1nuggli11g Activities Act 1974, Section 3-Detenu's represen-
tation against order of dete11tio11-Disposal of such representation by detaining 
nuthority-Necessity for slightest departure froni ti111e ilnperative-Detaining 
authority-To explain. 
Pleadings-Affidavits in cases involving personal freedoni-Precision, perspe-
cuity and clarity-Necessiry for. 
The petitioner was s'erved on November 23, 1979 with an order of detention 
under the Conserva.tion of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Acti-
vities Act 1974, and the grounds of detention \Vere also served on th'e detcnu on 
the same day. 
On December 1st, 1979, the advocate of the detcnu I';!questcd 
for copies of the state1nents and documents upon which reliance was placed in 
th'e grounds of detention and at the instance of the detaining authority (Adminisw 
1rator, Union Territory of Delhi), the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence turw 
nished the copies sought on December 7, 1979, On Det'ember 22, 1979, the 
.d'etenu made a representation to the detaining authority which 
was 
actually 
received by the latter on December 26, 1979. A copy of the representation was 
forwarded to the Customs authorities for their remarks which were received en 
J~1mary 4, 1980. The representation was th'ereafter considered and rejected by 
A 
B 
c 
D 
:the detnining authority on January 15, 1980. The· rejection of the representation 
B 
was communicated to the detenu on January 17, 1980. 
Jn the m'eanwhile, the Advisory Board to whom the detention 
had 
been 
referred met on January 4, 1980, and considered the matter. The detenu 
was 
produced before the Advisory Board and the conc'emed departmental · offict:ils 
were also present. On January 10, 1980, the Advisory Board recorded its opinion 
.and forwarded the same to the detaining authority, which recomm'endation \\'-as 
placed before the Administrator on January 19, 1980, when the detaining autho-
rity confirmed the order of detention. 
Jn the writ petition under Article 32 it was contended on behalf of the peti-
tioner ( 1) that the representation of the detenu made on December 22, 1979, 
was not communicated to the Advisory Board as it ought to have been when 
the board met on January 4, 1980, (2) that the detaining authority should have 
disposed of the representation before forwarding it to the Advisory Board ar..d 
.even ff the detaining authority did forward it to the Advisory Board, the detain~ 
ing authority should not have awaited the h'earing before the Advisory Board 
and should not have allowed itself to be influenced by such hearing, and (3) thal 
there \Vas inexcusable delay in enabling the det'enu to n1ake a representation and 
in disposing of such representation. 
F 
G 
Disn1issing the writ petition, 
Il 
HELD : I. The representation of the detenu was forwarded to the Ad·1i,o;y 
lloard and it was also considered by the latter. [1098HJ 
A 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
1096 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[!980] 2 S.C.R. t 
2. On ~1n examination of the records it is found that though the Ad1ninis-
trator considered the representation of the detenu aft'er the hearing by the Board, 
the Administrator \Vas entirely uninfluenced by the hearing before the Board. 
[l 104B] 
3. If there appear'ed to be any delay in disposing of the representation ol the 
detcnu it -..vas not due to any w·ant of care but bec2.i.1se the representation required 
thorough examination in consultntion with investigators of facts a'.ld advisers on 
Jaw. 
[1104A] 
Jn the instant case, the petitioner's request for copies of statements and docu~ 
rnents was received by thl.! detaining authority on December 3, 1979 and at the 
instance of the detaining authority, the Director of Revenue Intelligence furnish-
ed the copies sought 011 December 7, 1979. 
The ·detenu's repr·.:sentation was 
received by the detaining authority on December 26, 1979. 
Without any losS 
of tim'e, copy of the representation \Vas sent to the Customs authorities for their 
remarks. 
This was necessary bec•:iuse the information leOOing to the order of 
detention was laid by the Custo1ns authorities and the facts \\'ere complex si1:ce 
th'e allegations against the detenu revealed an involvement with an international 
gall£ of dope smugglers. The comments

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