SANJEEV KUMAR AGGARWAL versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Citation: [1990] 2 S.C.R. 318 · Decided: 04-04-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SANJEEV KUMAR AGGARWAL 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 
APRIL 4, 1990 
B 
[S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN AND K. JAYACHANDRA 
c 
REDDY, JJ.] 
Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling 
Activities Act-Section 3( 1)-Detention order in case of detenu already 
in jail-Passing of-Whether permissible and when valid. 
The petitioner was detained under Section 3( l) of the Conserva-
tion of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act by 
an order dated 13. 7 .1989. The facts leading to his arrest and detention 
are: 
D 
On 7. 7 .1989 officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence New 
Delhi intercepted a Maruti Car in which one Mahesh Kumar Chauhan 
and three others were present. On search of the car no recovery was 
made on the spot, but later on when the car was thoroughly rummaged 
in presence of two independent witnesses and the occupants of the car, 
206 foreign marked gold biscuits of ten tolas each were recovered from 
E 
the cavities of the car meant for fitting speakers in the rear portion of 
the car. The occupants did not give any explanation for the possession 
of the said gold biscuits. However on personal search of Mahesh, a slip 
was recovered which contained a telephone number and Mahesh 
Kumar in his statement admitted that he was to hand over the smug-
gled goods to one Vijay Kumar. Mahesh Kumar admitted that he was 
F 
visiting Dubai frequently to bring consumer goods and ornaments for 
being sold in the local market. According to him one A vtar Singh who 
was engaged in smuggling of foreign gold biscuits, agreed to sell the 
gold biscuits. to Mahesh Kumar on commission. He also gave some 
details about Avtar Singh. Similarly Vijay Kumar also made a state-
ment. From these statements it is also revealed that petitioner Sanjeev 
G 
Kumar Aggarwal had made arrangements for selling the gold biscuits. 
The residential premises of the petitioner was searched and he was 
taken into custody. The petitioner made a statement before the officers 
of the Directorate or Revenue Intelligence. On the basis of the material 
the detaining authority passed an order of detention on 13. 7 .1989 which 
was served on the petitioner on 24.7.1989. The grounds of detention 
H 
were also served on the petitioner in time. 
318 
S.K. AGGARWAL v. U.0.1. & ORS. 
319 
The petitioner challenged his detention by means of a writ petition 
before the Delhi High Court, and having remained unsuccessful, he 
filed this petition for Special Leave to Appeal against the order of the 
Delhi High Court dismissing his writ petition. 
Before this Court two main points have been urged viz., (i) that there 
is a total non-application of mind by the detaining authority inasmuch as he 
has failed to note that the petitioner was in jail, and that there was no 
possibility of his being released, and the failure to consider this aspect 
on the part of the detaining authority renders his detention invalid; and 
(ii) that the detaining authority has not applied his mind properly in 
rejecting his representation and that there was delay ir. serving the 
detention order on him. 
Dismissing the petition, this Court, 
--:..L 
HELD: Whether an order of detention can be passed agains< a 
person who is in detention or in jail, will always have to be determined 
A 
B 
c 
in the circumstances of each case. 
D 
No decision of this Court has gone to the extent of holding that no 
order of detention can validly be passed against a person in custody 
under any circumstances. [326B] 
Section 3(3) of the Act lays down that for the purpose of Article 
E 
22( 5) of the Constitution the order should be served as soon as possible 
but ordinarily not later than five days and in exceptional circumstances 
and for reasons to be recorded in writing, not later than fifteen days 
from the date of detention. [3208] 
In the instant case from the record it was submitted that it took 
F 
quite sometime for translating the documents to Hindi and Gurmukhi, 
and the Court is satisfied that there are valid and sufficient reasons for 
delay in serving the detention order. [327C-D] 
Abdul Razak Abdul Wahab Sheikh v. S.N. Sinha, Commisioner 
of Police, Ahmedabad & Anr., [1989] 2 S.C.C. 222; Binod Singh v. 
G 
District Magistrate, Dhanbad, [1986] 4 S.C.C. 416; Vijay Kumar v. 
State of Jammu & Kashmir, [1982] 2 S.C.C. 43; Ramakrishna Rawat v. 
District Magistrate, Jabalpur, [1975] 4 S.C.C. 164; Smt. Shashi Aggar-
wal v. State of U.P. & Ors., [1988] 1 S.C.C. 436; Ramesh

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