K.P.M. BASHEER ETC. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR. ETC.

Citation: [1992] 1 S.C.R. 1075 · Decided: 28-02-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

K.P.M. BASHEER ETC. 
v. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR. ETC. 
FE;BRUARY 28, 1992 
[S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN,.KULDIP SINGH AND R.M. SAHA!, JJ.] 
Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Ac-
tivities Act, 1974: 
A 
B 
Section 3( 1)-Detention Order-Undue and unreasonable delay in ex-
C 
ecutio11-Maintai11ability. 
The appellant, on 12.11.1990, was found carrying two gold pellets 
with foreign. markings each weighing ten tolas, without any valid permit. 
The order of detention under S.3(1) of the conservation of Foreign Ex-
change and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 was passed on D 
7.1.1991. The detention order was served on him on 28.6.1991. 
The Writ Petition challenging the detention order, inter alia, on the 
ground of undue and reasonable delay in its execution was dismissed by 
the High Court. 
E 
The detenu filed the appeal by special leave against the High Court's 
order as also the writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution before 
this Court. 
Allowing the appeal and disposing of the writ petition, this Court, 
F 
HELD: 1.1 The order of detention cannot be sustained since the 
'live and proximate link' between the grounds of detention and the purpose 
of detention is snapped on account of the undue and unreasonable delay 
in securing the appellant/detenu and detaining him. The order o( deten-
G 
lion b liable to be set aside oil this ground alone. [p. 1080A-B) 
1.2 Though the two gold pellets (the contrabands) were seized from 
the appellant on 12.11.1990, the order of detention was passed on 7.1.1991, 
and the detention order W-dS executed after a period of 5 months and 11 
days. {pp. 1078F; 1079G-H; 1080A) 
H 
1075 
1076 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1992] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
2.1 No sufficient cause is shown for not taking any action under s.7 of 
the CO FE POSA Act. The explanation-that though COFEPOSA section in 
the office of the Collectorate of Customs requested the State Government on 
19.4.1991 to initiate action under s.7(1) (b) of the Act it was not done so 
because the seizing unit was asked to make one more attempt to trace out the 
B appellant-is not satisfactory and reasonable one. [pp.1078G-H; 1079A-B] 
2.2 No serious and sincere effort was taken by the arresting officers: 
There was only exchange of correspondence between the Department and 
the arresting officers. It is incomprehensible as to why no effort was made 
to secure the. appellant/detenu during the two days, namely, on 6th and 
C. 20th Feb. 91, when he appeared before the Assistant Collector of Customs. 
[pp.1079F-G] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 
144 of 1992. 
From the Judgement and Order dated 27.9.1991 of the Karnataka 
D 
High Court in W.P. No. 113 of 1991. 
WITH 
Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 1394 of 1991. 
E 
C.S. Vaidyanathan and P.K. Manohar for the Appellant. 
F 
K.T.S. Tulsi, J\ddl. Solicitor General, P. Parmeswaran, A.K. Srivas-
tava, M. Veerappa and Kh. Nobin Singh (For the 'State of Karnataka) for 
the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN, J. Leave granted. 
The appellant/petitioner K.P.M. Basheer by the above appeal is 
challenging the correctness and legality of the order dated 27th September 
G 1991 made by the High Court of Karnataka dismissing the Writ Petition 
filed by the appellant challenging the legality and validity of the order of 
detention dated 7.1.1991 passed by the State of Karnataka. 'The first 
respondent in the appeal, namely, the State of Karnataka in exercise of the 
powers conferred by the Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign 
H Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act 1974 (hereinafter 
t 
KP.M. BASHEER '"STATE (PANDIAN,J.] 
1077 
referred to as 'the. Act') passed the impugned detention order on 7th A 
January 1991 with a view to preventing him from engaging in keeping and 
transporting smuggled goods falling within the mischief of Section 3(1)(iii) 
of the. Act. The appellant was directed to be detained and kept in the 
custody of the central prison, Banglore. 
The brief facts of the case which led to the passing of the impugned B 
order can be summarised as follows: 
On 12.11.1990 the Superintendent of Central Excise on information 
interrogated the appellant at the Balgaum bus stand on his arrival from 
Bombay in the presence of some panchas and recovered two gold pellets C 
with foreign markings each weighing ten tolas, wrapped in a paper packet 
from his front side right watch pocket of his pant

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