MADAN LAL ANAND ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1989] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 733 · Decided: 26-10-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. DUTT · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

MADAN LAL ANAND ETC. 
·A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 26, 1989 
[MURARI MOHON DUTT ANDS. NATARAJAN, JJ.] 
B 
Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling 
Activities Act, 1974: Section 3-Detention Order-Factum that detenu 
has retracted confession to be placed before detaining authority: the 
requirement that each day's delay must be explained not a megical 
formula. 
c 
Practice and Procedure: Affidavit-Deponent who has no 
personal knowledge about any fact-May on basis of other facts-Make 
submissions to the Court. 
The petitioner, Madan Lal Anand, was detained alongwith two 
D 
other' persons, under section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign 
Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 197~COFE
POSA ACT. ln the grounds of detention it was inter alia alleged that the 
detenu had imported polyester filament yarn and polyester fibre in the 
names of M/s Jasmine and M/s Expo International on the basis of 
"Actual User" advance licences obtained under the Duty Exemption 
E 
Entitlement Certificate Scheme on the condition that they would 
manufacture ready-made garments out of the imported polyester fila-
ment and export the same; that they had no intention to manufacture or 
export the manufactured goods, as there was neither any machinery at 
their so-called factory nor any power connection; that investigations 
had revealed that both the firms had sold the imported polyester fila-
F 
ment yarn in contravention of the orders and conditions of the advace 
licences; and that the said firms were benami firms and Madan Lal 
Anand had played a very active and major role for obtaining advance 
licences in the names of the said firms, importing the yarn and selling it 
in the local market. 
The three detenu, including Madan Lal Anand, filed a petition in 
the High Court of Punjab and Haryana praying for the issuance of a 
writ of habeas corpus and challenging the validity of the order of deten-
tion. The High Court dismissed the petition. 
G 
Before this Court it was contended on behalf of the detenn that: 
H 
733 
M.L. ANAND v. U.0.1. 
735 
copies of certain documents and accordingly there was no substance in 
A 
the contention that there was non-application of mind by the detaining 
authority. [745Cl 
(5) Even assuming that the ground relating to the confessional 
statement made by the detenu under section 108 of the Customs Act was 
an inadmissible ground as the subsequent retraction o!'the confessional 
statement was not considered by the detaining authority, still then that 
would not make the detention order bad, for, in the view of this Court, 
such order of detention shall be deemed to have been made separately 
on each of such grounds. Therefore, even excluding the inadmissible 
ground, the order of detention can be justifwd . .(746A-l!J 
Prakash Chandra Mehta v. Commissioner & Secretary, Govern-
ment of Kera/a, [1985] Suppl. SCC 144, ref~rred to. 
( 6) There can be no doubt that a deponent who has no personal 
knowledge about any fact may, on the basis of some other facts, make 
his submission in court. [746G] 
(7) Merely because the. detaining authority has not sworn an 
affidavit, it will not in all circumstances be fatal to the sustenance of the 
order of detention. ['7478] 
B 
c 
D 
P.L. Lakhanpa/ v. Union of India & Ors., [1967] 1 SCR 433; 
E 
Asgar Ali v. District Magistrate Burdwan & Ors., [1974] 4 SCC 527 and 
Suru Mallick v. State of West Bengal, [1975] 4 SCC 470, referred to. 
(8) There was no !aches or negligence on the part of the detaining 
authority or the other authorities concerned in dealing with the 
representation of the detenu. The observations made by this Court F 
that each day's delay in dealing with the representation must be 
adequately explained are meant to emphasize the expedition with 
which the representation must be considered and not that it is a 
magical formula, the slightest breach of which must result in the 
release of the detenu. l749C-D] 
Mst. L.M.S. Ummu Saleema v. Shri B.B. Gujaral, [1981] 3 SCC 
317, explained. 
(9) The said two firms had really no existence and were the 
benami concerns of the detenu, and the detenu if released, may indulge 
G 
in such economic offences in setting up fictitious firms and taking out 
H 
A 
736 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1989] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 
advance licences in the name of such firms. (750B] 
Ach/a Kakkar v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi & Ors., 
[1988] Crl. Law Journal 1896, distinguished. 
ORIGI
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.