SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU PUBLIC (LAW AND ORDER) REVENUE DEPARTMENT & ANR. versus KAMALA & ANR.

Citation: [2018] 3 S.C.R. 854 · Decided: 10-04-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
854
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 3 S.C.R.
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU PUBLIC
(LAW AND ORDER) REVENUE DEPARTMENT & ANR.
v.
KAMALA & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 507 of 2018)
APRIL 10, 2018
[DIPAK MISRA CJI, A. M. KHANWILKAR AND
DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of
Smuggling Activities Act ,1974 – s.3(1)(ii) – Detention order – Period
of detention not specified in detention order – Non-specification
would not vitiate detention order.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD:  The High Court was not justified in quashing the
order of detention on the basis that no period of detention was
provided in the order. The High Court has proceeded on the
basis of the decision of this Court in Bhiryani which is no longer
good law in view of the subsequent decision of a larger Bench in
Devaki. The decision of the High Court in Santhi, to the extent
that it adopts the same position as in Bhiryani, will not reflect the
correct legal position. [Para 5][856-G]
Commissioner of Police v. Gurbux Anandram Bhiryani
(1988) Supp SCC 568  – Not correct law.
S Santhi v. The Secretary to Government, Home,
Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat,
Chennai 2010 (3) MWN (Cr.) 42 (DB) – Partly
disapproved.
T Devaki v. Government of Tamil Nadu (1990) 2 SCC
456 – relied on.
Case Law Reference
(1988) Supp SCC 568
not correct law
Para 1
(1990) 2 SCC 456
relied on
Para 4
[2018] 3 S.C.R. 854
854
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
855
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
507 of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.02.2016 of the High Court
of Judicature at Madras in HCP No. 2442 of 2015.
Mrs. Sujatha Bagadhi, M. Yogesh Kanna, Advs. for the Appellants.
T. Harish Kumar, Navneet Dugar, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 1. The High Court has set
aside an order of detention issued under Section 3(1)(ii) of the
Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling
Activities Act 19741 on the ground that the period of detention was not
specified. In arriving at this conclusion, the High Court has relied upon a
decision of this Court in Commissioner of Police v Gurbux Anandram
Bhiryani2,and on a judgment of the High Court in S Santhiv The
Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise
Department, Secretariat, Chennai3.
2. The Government of Tamil Nadu is in appeal.
3. The submission which has been urged is that though the period
of detention has come to an end, it is necessary for the Court to correct
the statement of legal position contained in the decision of the High
Court. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to the fact
that the earlier decision of a Bench of two judges in Bhiryani
(supra)wasoverruled by a Bench of three judges in T Devaki v
Government of Tamil Nadu4.
4. In T Devaki v Government of Tamil Nadu, a Bench of this
Court has held that since the legislation does not require the detaining
authority to specify the period for which a detenue is required to be
detained, the order of detention is not rendered invalid or illegal in the
absence of such specification.This Court held thus:
“13. This Court has consistently taken the view that an order of
detention is not rendered illegal merely because it does not specify
the period of detention. A Constitution Bench of this Court
1The COFEPOSA Act 1974
21988 (Supp) SCC 568
3 2010 (3) MWN (Cr.) 42 (DB)
4 (1990) 2 SCC 456
SECY. TO GOVT. OF T.N. PUBLIC (LAW AND ORDER)
REVENUE DEPT. v. KAMALA [DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
856
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 3 S.C.R.
in Ujagar Singh v. State of Punjab [(1952) 3 SCR 756: AIR
1952 SC 350: 1953 Cri LJ 146] , while considering validity of
detention order made under Section 3 of the Preventive Detention
Act, 1950 held that non-specification of any definite period in a
detention order made under Section 3 of the Act was not a material
omission rendering the order invalid. In Suna Ullah Butt v. State
of Jammu & Kashmir [(1973) 3 SCC 60: 1973 SCC (Cri) 138:
(1973) 1 SCR 870] , validity of detention order made under Jammu
and Kashmir Preventive Detention Act, 1964 was under challenge
on the ground that the State Government while confirming the
detention order under Section 12 of the Act had failed to specify
the period of detention. The court held that since the State
Government had power to revoke or modify the detention order
at any time before the completion of the maximum period
prescribed under
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.