MST. L.M.S. UMMU SALBBMA versus B.B. GUJARAL & ANR.

Citation: [1981] 3 S.C.R. 647 · Decided: 04-05-1981 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: O. CHINNAPPA REDDY · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

,F ·-
y 
MST. L.M.S. UMMU SALBBMA 
v. 
B.B. GUJARAL & ANR. 
May 4, 1981 
( 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, A.P. SEN AND 
BAHARUL !SLAM, JJ. ] 
647 
Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities~Act 
1974, S.3(1). 
Detention under-Delay in disposal of representation-Whether vitiates deten-
tion. 
Detaining Authority-Failure to consider prosecution under the ordinarvJicrimi-
nal /aw-Whether voids order of detention. 
Constitution of India 1950, Art. 22(5)-Detaining authoritv-Failure of-
To furnish copy of document to which reference is made in grounds of detention-
Whether fatal to order of detention. · 
Indian Evidence Act 1872, Ss. 16andI14-Detenu alleging despatch of commu-
nicatian under certificate of posting-Detaining authority contending non-receipt-
A 
B 
c 
0 
Court whether compelled to draw a presumpiion that communication reached the 
E 
addressee. 
On August 6, 1980 the car in which the detenu was travelling was inter-
cepted by Customs Officers and on a search of the car, wrist watches of foreign 
origin and semi-precious stones valued at Rs.2.95 lakhs were found ingeniously 
concealed in the panelling of the front doors and the cavity between the petrol 
tank and the steel plate covering the petrol tank. The goods were seized by the 
Customs Officers alongwith the Car. On 7.8.1980 the detenu was interrogated and 
a statement was recorded which incriminated himself and others. He was taken 
before the Magistrate on 8.8. 19d0 and was remanded to custody. On 12.8.1980 
he was granted bail. On 14.8.80 the detenu was stated to have sent a communi-
cation addressed to the Assistant Collector of Customs, in which, according to 
him, he retracted from the statement made by him on 7.8.80 and claimed that 
F 
the statement.had been obtained by torturing him. 
G 
On 31.10.80. the first respondent made an order of preventive detention 
against the detenu under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange 
and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act 1974. The order of detention and 
the grounds of detention were served on 2.2.81, as the detenu was avoiding service 
and arrest. The detenu made a representation on 4.2.81, whi~h was rejected by 
H 
the detaining authority, the first respondent on 19.2.1981. · 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
648 
SUPREME COURT R.l!PORTS 
[ 1981} 3 S.C.R. 
In the writ petition to this Court it was contended on behalf of detenu : (1) 
that as material documents viz. record of investigation revealing the trunk tele-
phone calls and the record of investigation relating to the petrol which was put 
into the jeep owned by the brother of the detenu, upon which reliance was placed 
in the order of detention were not supplied to the detenu along with the grounds 
of detention, the detenu was thereby prevented from making an effective repre-
sentation and denied the Fundamen ta! Right guaranteed under Article 22(5). (2) 
The detaining authority was under obligation to supply alongwith the grounds, 
copies of all documents to which reference was made in the grounds irrespective 
of whether such documents were not relied upon in making the order of deten-
tion. (3). Although the detenu had retracted from his alleged original statement 
dated 7.8.80 long before the order of detention was made, the fact of such retrac-
tion was not considered by the detaining authority (4). There was considerable 
delay in the disposal of the representation by the detaining authority and this 
was sufficient to vitiate the detention, (5). The detaining authority did not apply 
his mind to the representation which made an express reference to the retraction. 
(6). The detaining authority had failed to consider the question whether a 
prosecution under the ordinary criminal law would not suffice to prevent the 
detenu from indulging in the alleged activities and whether preventive detention 
was necessary in the circumstances of the case. 
Dismissing the petition the Court, 
HELD : 1. (i) A perusal of the grounds of detention reveal that neither the 
record of Trunk Calls nor the record of investigation relating to the petrol put 
into the jeep were in any manner relied upon by the detaining authority in 
making the order of detention. [652 CJ 
(ii) The reference to the re~ord of trunk calls was made for the purpose 
of verifying the trunk call which was received in the premises when the customs 
officers were there. The reference to the record of investigation relating to 
the petrol put into the jeep was 

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