REKHABEN VIRENDRA KAP ADJA versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

Citation: [1979] 2 S.C.R. 257 · Decided: 07-11-1978 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.S. KAILASAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

2 57 
REKHABEN VIRENDRA KAP ADJA 
v. 
STATE OF GUJARAT &ORS. 
' 
November 7, 1978 
[P. S. KAILASAM, D. A. DESAI AND A. D. KOSHAL, JJ.] 
..-
Coruervation of Foreign Exchange & Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 
1 • 
1974-S. 3-Grounds of detention stated detenu "likely to engage in transporting 
smuggled goods"-Validity of-Reasonable nexus between prejudicial activities 
.nnd purpose of detention-Tests for determination of. 
The appellant was detained under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 
1971 in September, 1974 but was released in December, 1974. In February~ 
1977 he was detained under s. 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange 
and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, on the ground that he was 
"'likely to engage in transporting smuggled goods". 
One of the grounds of 
detention stated : "you were an associate of a noto:-ious smuggler, ti1at you 
were engaged in piloting smuggled goods loaded in trucks from the place of 
landing .... " 
In support of the Ubove, two instances were mentioned : one 
relating to an incident on 6th August, 1974 and another on 25th August, 
1974. 
In the appe1Iant's writ petition the High Court observed ( 1) that although 
some of the activities attributed to the detenu related to August 1974, the .fact 
-that the detenu was in illegal employment of a notorious smuggler under deten-
tion clearly indicated that there was connection between him and the smuggler 
·and (2) that a resasonable nexus between the prejudicial activities and the pur-
,pose of detention could not be said to have been snapped by the time lag render-. 
ing the impugned order of detention as one without genuine satisfaction of the 
detaining authority. 
In appeal tq this Court it \Vas contended on behalf of the appellant that 
the order of detention was bad, in that it disclosed that the satisfaction arrived 
at by the detaining authority was mechanical and without application of his 
mind. 
Allowing the appeal, 
HELD : ( 1) It is clear from the record that the instances alleged do not 
relate to any incident after 1974 but only relate· to the activities of the detenu 
in 1973 and 1974. 
Even though information about the activities of the detenu 
·during the year 1974 came to light in October and November, 1976, a fresh 
-order of detention under the Act \Vas not passed till February, 1977. If the 
authorities were in possession of any activities of the detenu after his release in 
December, 1974 action would have been taken. It is only the statements that 
were recorded in October and November 1976 which led the authorities to pass 
a fresh order of detention in February, 1977. From the statements recorded 
in October 3!nd November, 1976 no incidents are shown to have taken place 
after 1974. [262B; 263C-D] 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
258 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1979] 2 S.C.R. 
(2) Whether the time lag between August 1974 and February 1977 is enough-
to snap the reasonable nexus between the prejudicial activities and the purpose 
of detention would depend upon the facts of the case. If the detaining authority 
had come to the conclusion, taking into account the past activities of the detenu, 
that he was likely to continue to indulge in his unlawful activities in future 
there would be no justification for this Court to interfere. It is quite likely 
that persoru who are totally involved in such activities as smuggling can cause a 
reasonable apprehension in the mind of the detaining authority that they are 
likely to continue in their unlawful activities. 
But in the instant case the· 
detaining authority passing the order has not stated that he \vas satisfied that 
the detenu was likely to engage in transporting smuggled goods. What he has. 
stated was that the detenu "engages" or is "likely to engage" in transporting 
smuggled goods. 
There was no material before the detaining authority for 
coming to the conclusion that the detenu was "engaging" himself in unlawful 
activities. [263F; 264A-CJ 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 105 of 
1978 with W.P. No. 833 of 1978. 
(Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and Order dt. 27.9.77 
D 
of the Gujarat High Court in Criminal Sp!. Application No. 
176 of 
1977). 
Ram Jethmalani and H. S. Parihar for the appellant in Cr. A. No. 
105 and WP No. 833/78. 
M. N. Phadke and B. D. Sharma and M. N. Shroff for respondent 
E 
No 1 
F 
Girish Chandra for re'spondent no. 4. 
M. N. Shroff for respondents 1-3. 
R. B Datar an

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