MOHD. SHAKEEL WAHID AHMED versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

Citation: [1983] 2 S.C.R. 614 · Decided: 31-03-1983 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Case Allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
614 
.. ~~ 
MOHO. SHAKEEL WAHID AHMED 
v.· 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. 
March 31, 1983 
[Y.V. CHA~DR·.~CHUD, C.J., V.D. TULZAPURKAR, 0. CH~~A 
REDDY', A. VARADARAJ'AN AND RANGANATH M!SRA,JJ.) 
Conservation 
(If Foreign 
Exchange and Prevelllinn (lr S 
1. 
d . 
' 
mugg 1111 
Act/vitfe!l •Act 1974-Two persons detalne 
In nspect of some lrllllsocr 
.r . 
.n: . I 
r. 
, 
. 
ron-
Advisory Board was o1 vtew no m",cten cause !~r c.etentrofl ·of one r>ftht,._ 
Failure to place vi ell' of the Boar~ ~efore detammg autlwrity while /lOSsing ordtr 
of detention of the other-Wl1etlrer vttratecl order of deft'ntiofl. 
· · The Customs officials intercepted a ship off Bombay and seized from it 
various articles worth severallakhs of rupees. None or the· seven persons '011 
boatd the ship possesed any documents authorising them to import the goods. 
On August 19; 1981, S. one of. the se~cn persons on board the ship, was 
detained under the provisions of Conservation of Foreign Exchange ami 
Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 ; but the Advisory Board reported 
that there was in its opinion no sufficient cause for his detrntion. He was 
therefore released. 
By an orda dated November 7, 1981 the petitioner, who wa1 also one 
of the persons on board the !jame ship, was detained under the COFEPOSA 
in re-spect of the sante transaction. Whilo.• dismissing the habras corpus 
petition filed by the petitioner's wife, th~ High Court was of opinion that time 
out of the four grounds on which the petitioner was delained were bad for one 
reason or the other but that the first ground was enough to)ustain the o.n!er 
of detention in that important material relevant to that ground was ntlther 
placed before nor considered by th" detain.ina authority white passing the 
order of det~ntion. , 
' 
In the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution it ~as contended ~· 
behalf of the petitioner that had the detaining ouihority in the instant '
1 i 
been apprised that the Advisory Board on examining an identical JfO:On 
In the case of S had reported that there ~as no sufficient cause for d: the 
of S who was involved in the same transaction It might not have pa 
and 
order of detention against the petitioner which is based on &:similar !at'~rore 
that its failure to place such highly relevant and important matena 
the detaining authority has vitiated the order of detention. 
Allowing the petition, 
. 
. 'reth' 
!nee bc•o . . 
, 
. .HELD : l11e failure of the State Government to P 
ccorded iJl I 
favour of another dctenu who was detained partly on a ground 
detalOtng authority the opinion which the AdvisorY Board had ~tatioltu 
·• 
/ 
-- -~, ;· f, 
i 
si!AICEBL AJ!MllD V. MAHARASHTRA 
615= 
d Prived -the- detainins authority of an 
opportun 't 1 
'dent e 
I • h 
1 
I Y o 
.... ~inti 
ieee of evidence w HC was re evant, if not binding 1 
..,_ ... -
· d to a P 
· 
d 'd 
t b 
· 
• n 
,...11 itS nlln bC detaining autho~I!Y I no ' ecause It could not, apply its 
.rP,, fords, I - tancc which reasonably could have arrected its decision 
oth" 
ircums 
f d 
· 
· 
h 
·!l(ltO a c 
ass an order o. etent1on agamst t e petitioner. [618 B-H] 
~~ 
or not to P 
. 
. 
tlll'~er 
. 
. . 
. 
. 
. . n of the. Board. 
may not 
hav~ been binding on the 
'fhO 0P1"
1
.
0
1y but it cannot be gain said that the fact that the Board had 
· authOJ1 
· 
' I C t . 
I . 
j~Uinill& 
pinion on 1dent1ca ac s mvo vmg a common ground· was 
~~such 
30
1°circumsmnce which ought to have been· placed before the· 
111¢1 a rdehva~ty in this case. The ground on which the High Court upheld 
· · gauton 
f 
h 
. 
jet.~~t1° (detention was.si!Jlilar to one o . t e. grounds,_ on which s. was 
t).l.~rder. o~ transaction being; one and the same as also the incident on which. 
j!P10ed• td c of t:etention were based. This is why the opinion of the Board· 
...,11'0or ers 
. 
h 
""'· · . 
ase became relevant m t e present case. [618 D-F] 
1\ibearher_c 
. 
. 
. 
· 
Jl·lllliY·be tna.t there ~ere other grounds on whidh .~ was. det~ined,_ and 
· th Addsory Board m•ght havc.corr.e to tt.e conclusiOn that smce these 
tW d~ were not' enough to justify his detention ther'! was no sufficient cause 
r~ining,him. But it is not as if the opinion of the Board was binding 
·thtdetaining authority. The substance of the I"Jattcr is that the detain ina. 
:lllority 10 this case failed to apply its mind to a highly relevant circutnstan~ 
i)lt,JO order of d~tcntioo passed on the ground on which the dete

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