PUSHPADEVI M. JATIA versus M.L. WADHAVAN, ADDL. SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [1987] 3 S.C.R. 46 · Decided: 29-04-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.P. SEN, S. NATARAJAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

...
A 
B 
c 
D 
PUSHPADEVI M. JATIA 
v. 
M.L. WADHAVAN, ADDL. SECRETARY GOVERNMENT 
OF INDIA & ORS. 
APRIL 29, 1987 
[A.P. SEN AND S. NATARAJAN, JJ.) 
Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling 
Activities Act, 1974-s. 3( 1)-Subjective satisfaction of the detaining 
authority-Court cannot consider propriety or sufficiency of grounds of 
detention-Court can examine whether requisite satisfaction was arrived 
at by the authority. 
Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling 
Activities Act, 1974-s. 5A-The principle that even if one of the 
grounds which led to the subjective satisfaction of the detaining autho-
rity is non-existent, etc., the order of detention would be invalid no 
longer holds good. 
Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling 
Activities Act, 1974-s. 3( 1)-Power of detention being subject to the 
/imitations imposed by the Constitution, Government must ensure that 
E 
safeguards provided in Art. 22(5) read withs. 3( 1) are fully complied 
with. 
F 
Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling 
Activities Act, 1974-S. 3(1)-Period of parole has to be excluded in 
reckoning the period of detention. 
Foreign 
Exchange 
Regulation 
Act, 
1973-s. 
40( 1)-
'Gazetted Officer of Enforcement' means any person appointed to be an 
officer of Enforcement under s. 4 and holding a gazetted post. 
Law of Evidence-If evidence is relevant, the Court is not con-
G 
cerned with the method by which it was obtained. 
' y 
De facto Doctrine-Where an office exists under law, so far as 
validity of its acts are concerned it matters not how the appointment is '<:I 
made. 
H 
The Petitioner's husband, Mohan i.al Jatia, was detained by an 
46 
J 
.L 
' 
!I 
-
.i. . 
y 
f 
PUSHPADEVI v. M.L WADHAVAN 
47 
order passed under sub·s. (I) of s. 3 of the Conservation of Foreign 
A 
Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 
1974 
(COFEPOSA) by the Addditional Secretary to the Government of 
India, Ministry of Finance on being satisfied that it was necessary to 
detain him 'with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner 
prejudicial to the augmentation of foreign exchange'. 
B 
The residential premises of one Subhash Gadia, a very rich and 
prosperous businessman of Bombay, the brother-in-law of the detenu, 
were searched on the basis of intelligence gathered by the Directorate of 
Revenue Intelligence that he was under-invoicing imports of yarn from 
Japan and it resulted in seizure of certain documents. As the seized 
documents not only revealed violation of the provisions of the Customs C 
Act but also indicated certain payments and transactions in violation of 
the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (FERA), the matter was 
referred to the Enforcement Directorate Investigation from the FERA 
angle. Subhash Gadia was summoned under s. 40 of the FERA and his 
statement was recorded by Shri R.C. Singh, an otlicer of the Enforce· 
ment Directorate. The incriminating documents seized from the resi· D 
dential premises of Subhash Gadia and the revelations made by him 
during his examination in relation to the documents seized which 
revealed that the detenu Mohan i,al Jatia was engaged in foreign 
exchange racketeering to the tune of several crores of rupees formed the 
basis ot' the aforesaid order of detention. 
The petitioner approached the High Court with petitions under 
Art. 226 of the Constitution seeking to challenge the impugned order of 
detention. Upon the dismissal of the first of these petitions by the High 
Court, the petitioner had approached this Court under Art. 136, and, 
the Court, while declining to grant special leave to appeal, had directed 
E 
• that the detenu should appear before the Commissioner of Police and, F 
upon his doing so, he should immediately be released on parole for a 
period of ten days. Thereafter, the petitioner tiled the second petition 
under Art. 226 with an application for extending the period of parole 
which was rejected by the High Court. The petition tiled under Art. 136 
against refusal of interim relief by the High Court was also rejected by 
this Court. Thereafter, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, G 
against which, the petitioner sought special leave to appeal and also 
tiled a petition under Art. 32 challenging the order of detention. While 
issuing notice on the petitioner, ·the Court directed the release of the 
detenu on parole for a week and by a subsequent order further exten· 
de

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