PHILLIPPA ANNE DUKE versus THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU

Citation: [1982] 3 S.C.R. 769 · Decided: 21-05-1982 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: O. CHINNAPPA REDDY · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

ae 
है 
et 
elem i, 
PHILLIPPA ANNE DUKE 
7 
4 
: 
. 
प्र 
. 
| THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU 
& ORS’ 
| 
क्र, 71982... 
B 
i 
| [O. Cumnappa REppy, J] 
Conservation of Forel; 
|: 
ट 
Pe 
ff 
Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities 
» 
OS. 
8 and 77 and Constitution of india, 1950, Article 22 (5). 
« 
Advisory Board—Legal répratehiaiton 
or 
‘fr 
i 
: 
न 
riend} 
i 
detenu—Grant of. Sacility—When arises, 
- 
? 
oe 
‘ 
. 
| 
v 
wi 
Detention order—Representation of the detenu to the Central Government— 
at is—Bout De Papiere to Prime Mintster—Petitions memorial to Minister— 
Whether statutory representation. 
है 
न 
+ 
* 
D 
The two petitioners who were British nationals and friends and collabora- 
tors in smuggling enterprises were detained under the provisions of the Conserva- 
- 
“on of Foreign Exchange and Prevention 
of Smuggling 
Activities Act 1974 for 
smuggling electronic equipment and goods worth several lakhs of tupees in secret 
.compartments and hidden cavities of 
a Mercedez Benz van. 
The High Court dismissed their petitions for release from detention, 
~ 
In their writ 
petitions under 
Article 
32 
it was contended that 
; (1) the 
representation made by them to the Centra] Government to revoke the orders of 
detention as 1008 back as March 1982 remained undisposed of and oa this ground 
alone bey were entitled to be 
released; (2) 
the Bout De 
Papier presented to the 
Prime Minister of India during 
her visit 
to England pointing out that the order 
FR 
of detention passed 
against 
the petitioners 
might 
be lifted and the deteaus be 
- 
cither released or charged and brought 
to trial 
without delay, had not been dis- 
: 
been denied the right to be represented before the 
bosed of; and (3) that they bad 
Te 
कपिल मत 
नल सन 
Advisory 
Bourd by ao Advocate or 
at least by 
Mae 
tio 
denied a ceanies to make ao appropriate and effective representation to the 
Advisory Board. 
: 
G 
Dismissing the petitions, 
HELD है (1) 
Representations from whatever source aie we 
€ver officer of one or other department of 
the eon, tao 
fepresentations to the Government under the CO 
A. 
4 
H 
Minister during her visit to 
he 
Prime 
ted to the 
ry by 
(2) The Bout De Papier eT es d to the External Affairs Minist 
Britain and the subsequent reminder q 
gt 
i 
ee 
0०० 
‘laced and Jined, as 
it were, 
~ 
770 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1982] 3 s.c.p. 
? 
the British High Commission are not representations to the Central Government, 
They were merely diplomatic communications between the Governments of the 
two countries which will be answered through appropriate diplomatic channels in 
proper time. 
Such diplomatic communications between one country and another 
cannot be treated as representations to the statutory authorities functioning under 
the COFEPOSA. [771 G-H; 772 A-E] 
_ 
* 
3(i) 
The Advisory Board consisting 
of three Judges of the High Court 
considered it unnecessary and 
inadvisable 
to 
allow legal 
representation to the 
detenus. 
That was 
a matter for decision 
of the Advisory Board and this Court 
— 
would not be justified to 
substitute 
its judgment 
in 
place of the Boards judg- 
ment, [774 C] 
(ii) 
A ‘friendly’ representation would 
have been provided by the Board 
had it been demanded. 
But it was not 
for the Advisory Board to offer ‘friendly’ 
representation to the detenus without being asked for. [774 D-E] 
In the instant case the order of detention made 
on January 7, 1982 was 
considered by the Advisory Board 
on February 8, 
1982 and 
its report showed 
that the detention was justified. [775 C-D] 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION; Writ Petition (Criminal) Nos. 27!-272 
of 1982. 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India) 
Ram Jethmalani and Miss Rani Jethmalani for the 
Petitioner. 
| 
R.K. Garg and A.V. Rangam, for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
_CHINNAPPA Reppy, 
J. 
Richard 
Beale 
and 
Paul Duncan 
Zawadzki, two 
British 
nationals, said 
to 
be friends and collabora- 
tors in smuggling enterprises are 
now under detention 
under 
the’ 
Provisions of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention 
of Smuggling Activities Act, Richard Beale arrived at Madras 
from 
Singapore on December 11, 
1981, He brought with hin a Mercedez 
Benz van. On examination 
by the customs authorities. 
the van was 
found 
to have 
secret compartments 
and 
hidden cavities: 
It was 
with all manner of electronic equipment 
hs Ms rupees. Richard Beale was interro- 
e

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