LICIL ANTONY versus STATE OF KERALA&ANR.

Citation: [2014] 14 S.C.R. 317 · Decided: 15-04-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.K. PRASAD · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 14 S.C.R. 317 
LICIL ANTONY 
v. 
STATE OF KERALA&ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 872 of2014) 
APRIL 15, 2014 
[CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD AND 
PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Preventive Detention - Smuggling of red sanders in 
India and abroad -Detention order passed under c 
COFEPOSA -
Challenged on ground that there was 
inordinate delay in passing the order which itself vitiated the 
same - Held: There has to be live link between the prejudicial 
activity and the order of detention - In case of delay, that has 
to be satisfactorily explained - Delay in issuing the order of o 
detention, if not satisfactorily explained, itself is a ground to · 
quash the order of detention - On facts, it cannot be said that 
there was undue delay in passing the order of detention and 
that live nexus with the prejudicial activity had snapped -
Order of detention not fit to be quashed on the ground of delay E 
in passing the same - Further, on facts, order of detention. 
also could not be said to have been vitiated on ground of 
delayed execution - Omission by the detaining authority to 
consider bail order passed by the triarcourt not crucial and, 
in no way affected its subjective satisfaction - No error in the F 
order of detention and the order passed by the High Court, 
refusing to quash the same -
Conservation of Foreign 
Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 197 4. 
The appellant is the wife of detenu and aggrieved 
by the order passed by the High Court declining to G 
quash the order of detention passed under the 
Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention· of 
Smuggling Activities Act, 197 4 (COFEPO~Af. 
317 
H 
318 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 14 S.C.R. 
A 
Challenging the order of detention, it was 
contend.ed on behalf of the appellant that there was 
·inordinate delay in passing the order of detention and 
that itself vitiated the same. It was pointed out that the 
last prejudicial activity which prompted the detaining 
B authority to pass the ord.er of detention had taken place 
on 171h of November, 2012; whereas the order of 
detention was passed on 5th of May, 2013; and that delay 
in passing the order was not explained ... 
The respondents admitted that the sponsoring 
C authority wro.te about the necessity of preventive 
detention in its letter dated 171h of December, 2012 for 
the prejudicial activity of the detenu which had taken 
' 
place on 17th of November, 2012 and the order of 
detention was passed on 5th of May, 2013 but contended 
D that this delay was sufficiently explained; and further that 
mere delay itself is not sufficient to hold that the order of 
detention is illegal. 
· 
Dismissing the appeal,. the Court 
E 
HELD:1.1. There has to be live link between the 
·prejudicial activity and the order of detention. 
COFEPOSA intends to deal with persons engaged in 
smuggling activities who pose a serious threat to the 
economy and thereby security of the nation. Such 
F persons by virtue of their large resources and influence 
cause delay in making of an order of detention. While 
dealing with the question ofdelay in making an order of 
detention, the court is required to be. circumspect and 
has to take a pragmatic view. No hard and fast formula 
G is possible to be"iaid or has been laid in this regard. 
H 
However, one thing is clear that in case of delay, that 
has to be satisfactorily explained. After all, the purpose 
of preventive detention· is to take immediate steps for 
preventing the detenu from indulging in prejudicial 
LICIL ANTONYv. STATE OF KERALA 
319 
. activity. If there is undue and long delay between the A 
prejudicial activity and making of the order of detention 
and the delay has not been explained, the order of 
detention becomes vulnerable. Delay in issuing the 
order of detention, if not satisfactorily explained, itself is 
a ground to quash the order of detention. No rule with B 
precision has been formulated in this regard. The test 
of proximity is not a rigid or a mechanical test. In case of 
undue and long delay the court has to investigate 
whether the link has been brol<en in the circumstances 
of each case. [Page 7][325-D-H; 326-A] 
C 
1.2. In the instant case, the prejudicial activity which 
prompted the sponsoring authority to recommend for 
detention of the detenu under COFEPOSA had taken 
place on 17'h of November, 2012. The allegation related 
to export of red sanders through International Container D 
Trans-shipment Terminal. The sponsoring auth

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