M. AHAMEDKUTTY versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation: [1990] 1 S.C.R. 209 · Decided: 31-01-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RANGANATHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 8 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

M. AHAMEDKUTIY 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 
JANUARY 31, 1990 
[S. RANGANATHAN AND K.N. SAIKIA, JJ.] 
B 
... 
Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling 
Activities Act, 1974: Sections 3, 9 and 10--Detention order-Validity 
of-Necessity to supply documents relied on by detaining authority to 
detenu-Prolongation of period of detention-Necessity to place facts 
and materials that occurred between date of detention and date of dee/a-
c 
ration before detaining authority. 
After the appellant landed at Trivandrum Airport from Abu 
,,I.. 
Dhabi, he was intercepted by the Customs officials detecting that he 
smuggled 1280 gms. of gold. He was arrested ou 31.1.1988. On 
12.2.1988 he was granted bail on certain conditions. 
D 
. With a view to preventing the appellant from smuggling gold, the 
impugned detenti.on order was passed against him on 25.6.1988 by the 
~-
Home Secretary, Government of Kerala, in exercise of the powers con-
ferred by section 3(l)(i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and 
Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. The appellant was taken 
E 
into custody on 2.8.1988. The Appropriate Authority and the Advisory 
Board found sufficient cause for his detention. 
The detenu challenged his detention moving a Habeas Corpus 
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, read with section 482, 
Cr.P.C., which was dismissed in limine by the High Court. 
F 
Before this Court. the main grounds of challenge to the detention 
order were that (1) after the event there was inordinate delay in pas-
sing the detention order which showed that there was no genuine· need 
for detention of the appellant; (2) there was inordinate and unexplained 
delay of 38 days in executfon of the detention order; (3) all the docu-
G 
ments and materials, particularly the appellants bail application, the 
r-
bail order, the show cause notice and his reply thereto were not placed 
before the detaining authority; (4) these documents and the fact that the 
appellant's old and new passports were seized and without those it 
would not be possible for the appellant to carry on smuggling, were not 
brought to the notice of the declaring authority; and (5) there was 
H 
209 . 
210 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
l1990] 1 S.C.R. 
A non-application of mind. 
-· 
On behalf of the State of K1~rala it was submitted, inter alia, that 
( l) there was no such delay betweieu the date of detection and the date of 
passing the order of detention so as to make the grounds stale or to snap 
the relation; (2) that the delay in execution of the detention order had 
B 
been explained; and (3) that the bail application as well as the bail order 
were placed before the detaining authority but the same having not 
been referred to or relied on by the detaining authority, copies thereof 
were not required to be furnished to the detenu along with the grounds 
of detention. 
c 
On behalf of the Union of India it was submitted that all the 
documents and materials that were required to be placed before the 
declaring authority were duly placed and on consideration of the rele-
vant materials the declaring authority validly made the declaration. 
Allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of detention, this 
D Court, 
HELD: (l) It has been laid down by this Court in a series of 
decisions that the rule as to une1xplained delay in taking action is not 
inflexible. Under a law like the COFEPOSA Act enacted for the 
purpose of dealing effectively with persons engaged in smuggling and 
E 
foreign exchange racketeering who, owing to their large resources and 
influence, have been posing a serious threat to the economy and thereby 
to the security of the nation, the courts should not merely on account of 
the delay in making of an order of detention assume that such delay, if 
not satisfactorily explained. must necessarily give rise to an inference 
that there was no sufficient material for the subjective satisfaction of 
F 
the detaining authority or that such subje~tive satisfaction was not 
genuinely reached. Taking of such a view would not be warranted 
unless the Court finds that the grounds are stale or Illusory or that there 
was no real nexus between the grounds _and the Impugned order of 
detention. l217B-E] 
G 
Ashok Narain v. Union of India, ll982] 2 SCC 437; Smt. Rekha: 
-
ben Virendra Kapadia v. State of Gujarat, [1979] 2 SCC 566; Sheikh 
Salim v. The State of West Bengal, [19751 1SCC_653; Rajendrakumar 
Natvarlal Shah v. State of Guj

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