LexGAUTAM JAIN versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
[2 .. Ql7J 1 S C.R. 366
·'' ~
GAUTAM JAIN
. .
:~
v ..
UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 2281 of20 14)
JANUARY 04. 2017
[A.K·. SIKRI AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.)
Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of
Smuggling Acrivilies Act, 1974- ss.3, 5A - Appellam-detained uls.
3(1;, served with the Ground'i of Detenlion and copies of cenain
relied upon documellls - AppellaHI challenged the detention order
in High Court con/ending that the respondents did not supply certain
documents qua one particular allegation in the detention order -
High Court upheld the detention order invoking the principle of
segregation of ground.'i enumerated in s. 5A, holding that the
detenlion order was based on various grouml.r and thus even if
documems pertaining ro one particular ground were not .mpplied
to the appella111, the detention order would .'iti/1 sustain on remaining
grounds -On appeal, held: {f detemion order is based on more
than one ground, independent of each other. then the detention
order will survive even if one of the ground~· found is non-existing
or legally unsustainable - In the install/ case, detention order is
based 011 multiple grounds inasmuch as "'arious different acts,
forming separate grounds, are mentioned on the basis of which
appellant was detained - Therefore, once il is found that detention
order contains many grounds, even if one of them is rejected,
principle of segregation contained in s.5A is attracted- Therefore,
contention that detcmion order is based only on one ground and
thus principle of sevembility of grounds i.-. not applicable is rejected
Words and phrases: Grounds- Meaning of, in the context of
s.5A, Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prcvenlion of
Smug~/ing Activities Act, 1974.
Dismissing the criminal appeal and the tagged writ petition,
tbe Court
HELD: 1.1 If the detention order is based on more than
one grounds, independent of each other, then the detention order
.}1
will still survive even if one of the grounds found is non-existing
I
366
GAUTAM JAIN v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
or legally unsustainable. On the other hand, if the detention order
is founded on one composite ground, though containing various
species or sub-heads, the detention order would be vitiated if
such ground is found fault with. (Para 15J [379~8]
1.2 In order to have proper analysis of the detention order,
meaning attributed to the expression ~grounds' contained in
Section SA of the A<:t is to be understood. (Para 16) (379-B]
1.3 Grounds are the •basic facts' on which conclusions are
founded and these are different from subsidiary facts or further
particulars of these basic £acts. Each 'basic fact' would constitute
a ground and particulars in support thereof or the details would
be subsidiary facts or further 1•articulars of the said basic fads
which will be integral part of the 'grounds'. Section 3 of the Act
does not use the term 'grounds'. No other provision in the Act
defines 'grounds'. Section 3(3) deals with communication of the
detention order and states that 'grounds' on which the order bas
been made shall be communicated tD the detenue as soon as the
order of detention is passed and fixes the time limit within which
such detention order is to be passed. It is here the expression
'grounds' is used and it is for this reason that detailed grounds
on which the detention order is passed are supplied to the
detenue. Various circumstances which are given under
sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act, on the basis of which
detention order can be ()assed, cannot be treated as 'grounds'.
Different instances would be treated as different 'grounds' as
they constitute basic facts making therr1 essentially factual
constituents of the 'grounds' and the fua·d•er particulars which
are given in respect of those instan;ces arc the subsidiary details.
(Para 19J (383·B~H; 384·A·IJ.f
1.4 The order of detention is based on multiple grounds
inasmuch as various diff~treut ads, which form separate grounds,
are mentioned on tbe basis of which the detaining authority formed
the opinion that it was desirable to put the appellant under
detention. The contention of the appellant that the detention
order is based only on one ground is thus, rejected. Once it is
found that the detention order (!Obtains many grounds, even if
one of them is to be rejected, principle of segregation contained
in Section SA gets attraded.[Paras lO, 231Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.