JASBIR SINGH versus LT. GOVERNOR, DELHI AND ANR.

Citation: [1999] 2 S.C.R. 706 · Decided: 14-04-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
JASBIR SINGH 
v. 
LT. GOVERNOR, DELHI AND ANR. 
APRIL 14, 1999 
B 
[G.B. PATTANAIK AND M.B. SHAH, JJ.] 
Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling 
Activities Act 1974 s. 3(3)-0rder of detention served on March 25-Grounds 
of detention required to be served by March 29 infact served on March 30-
. C . Whether infraction ofs. 3(3)-Held,for computing the period of five days the 
date March 25 had to be excluded; there was no infraction of s. 3(1). 
Constitution of lndia"-Article 22 r/w Conservation of Foreign Exchange 
and prevention of Smuggling Activities Act 1974, ss. 3(1) and 11-Detenu 's 
D representation addressed to Advisory Board and not to Central Governme11t-
Separate representation to Central Government disposed of by it-Whether 
non-consideration by Central Government of representation sent to Advisory 
Board vitiated the order of detention-Held, no; on facts, question of infraction I 
of detenu 's constitutional right did not arise. 
E 
Preventive Detention-Representation by detenu to Central Government 
made on June 22, 1994 disposed of on July 12, 1995-Whether delay 
inordinate and vitiated detention-Held, no; on facts, cannot be said there 
was unusual delay in disposing of representation. 
The appellant was apprehended while leaving for Kualalumpur and on 
F search US dollars equal to Rs. 1.39 lakhs were recovered from hiiq. An 
order dated March 25, 1994 under s. 3(1) of the Conservation· of Foreign 
Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA) 
was served on the appellant on the same day. The grounds of detention were 
served on him on March 30, 1994. 
G 
The appellant's representation addressed to the Advisory Board (and 
not to the central government) was considered by it and his detention was 
confirmed. The detenu's representation made separately to the Central 
Government op June 22, 1994 was disposed of by it on July 12, 1995. The 
writ petition challenging the detention order was dismissed by the Delhi 
H High Court. Hence This appeal. 
706 
--
-
JASBIR SINGH v. ~ T. GOVERNOR, DELHI 
707 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. For computing the period of 5 days the date of detention 
order viz 25th March, 1994 has to be excluded. The grounds having been 
served on 30th March, 1994, there was no infraction of s. 3(3) of the Act. 
(710-A; C-D} 
Haru Das Gupta v. The State of West Bengal, (1972} 1 SCC 639, 
referred to. 
A 
B 
2. The question of infraction of constitutional right of the detenu 
because the representation addressed to the Advisory Board had not been 
considered by the Central Goyernment did not arise. In the present case C 
where the Detaining Authority was the Lt. Governor of Delhi, if the 
representation had not been addressed to the Central Government even 
though indicated in the grounds of detention then it could not be said that 
any representation made by the detenu to the Advisory Board ought to have 
been considered by the Central Government. That apart the detenu also did D 
file a representation to the Central Government and the same was disposed 
of by it. [711-F-H] 
Smt. Gracy v. State of Kera/a, [1991] 1 SCC t', referred to. 
3. There had not been an unusual delay in disposing of the 
representation. There was no inflexible rule that delay in considering the E 
representation in all cases ipso facto would be sufficient to render the 
detention void. Further what can be held to be an unexplained delay in 
disposing of the representation would depend upon the facts and circumstance 
of each case. [712-A-B] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 
913of1995. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.1.95/15.2.95 of the Delhi in Crl. 
W.P. No. 295of1995. 
A. Mariarputham, Ms. Aruna Mathur and Maninder Singh for the 
Appellant. 
R.C. Kaushik and (Mrs. Anil Katiyar) (NP) for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
F 
G 
H 
A 
708 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1999] 2 S.C.R. 
PA TT ANAIK, J. The appellant challenges the legality of his order of 
detention passed under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange 
and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short COFEPOSA) as 
well as the order of the Division Bench of Delhi High Court dismissing thP-
appellant's Writ Petition filed for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus. The 
B order of detention was passed on 25.3.1994 and the period of detention was 
for a period of one year which is long over but the detenu pursues his right 

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