SMT. POONAM LATA versus M.L. WADHAWAN & ANR.

Citation: [1987] 3 S.C.R. 840 · Decided: 07-08-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.P. SEN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SMT. POONAM LATA 
v. 
M.L. WADHAWAN & ANR. 
AUGUST 7, 1987 
-4 
B 
[A.P. SEN AND RANGANATH MISRA, JJ.] 
-...
Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling 
Activities Act, 1974: s. 3( 1)-Preventive detention-Order made when 
detenu in jail-Order whether vitiated. 
c 
In criminal writ petition No. 292 of 1986, preferred by detenu's "
wife on various grounds, the Vacation Judge ordered his release on 
parole till further orders. However, when the petition came up for 
hearing before the Division Bench on 3rd March, 1987 the counsel 
confined his submissions to one aspect only that arose out of the pro-
ceedings in Court i.e., that the period of parole should not be added to 
~
D 
the period of detention. That plea was rejected and the petition dlsmis· 
sed on 22nd April, 1987. 
In the present writ petition filed thereafter on April 27, 1987 it 
was averred that the counsel did not give up the other points in the 
earlier writ petition, and had the Court indicated that the petitioner's 
E 
submission would not find favour with it he would have proceeded to 
argue the case. Further, two more points were raised: (1) that the 
._.., 
detenu had been prejudiced in making an effective representation to the 
Board against his detention in the absence of the summons issued under 
~ 
s. 108 of the Customs Act to him, which document had not been sup· 
plied in spite of demand, and (2) that since the detenu was already in 
F 
custody at the time the order of detention was served the said order was 
liable to be quashed. 
Dismissing the writ petition, 
HELD: 1. It is common experience that when several contentions 
~ 
G 
are advanced in the pleadings, counsel chooses to press one or some out 
of the several contentions at the time or the bearing. In the instant case, 
only one point was argued at the previous hearing. It was open to the 
counsel to make full submissions on all aspects arising in the writ pell· 
lion. That having not been done it was Improper on his part to raise 
such allegations. [844A, D] 
H 
840 
-
POONAM LATA v. M.L. WADHAWAN 
841 
2.1 The detenu had been called by the Customs Authorities for A 
investigation on February 27, 1986. A statement had been made by him 
under s. 108 of the Customs Act and thereafter he was taken into 
custody and produced before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magis-
trate, who remanded him to custody and directed him to be produced 
on the following day in the court. By the time the order of detention 
~ under s. 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act for one year came to be made on 
8 
February 28, 1986 he was in jail at the most for one day. Chargesheet 
had not been submitted against him in the criminal case. [847FG] 
2.2 Since there was no summons and the detenu had been orally 
directed to attend the omce by the authorities concerned, it could not be 
held that summons under s. 108 of the Customs Act was in existence. 
C 
Once the summons was not in existence it could not be said that there 
was prejudice to the detenu on account of the authority's withholding 
the summons. [846D] 
3.1 The fact that the detenu was already in detention did not take 
away the jurisdiction of the detaining authority in making an order of D 
preventive detention. What is necessary in a case of that type is to 
satisfy the court when detention is challenged on that ground that the 
detaining authority was aware of the fact that the detenu was already in 
custody and yet he was subjectively satisfied that his order of detention 
became necessary. [851D] 
3.2 1n the instant case, there was sufticient material to show that the 
detaining authority was aware of the fact that the petitioner was in 
custody when the order was made yet he was satisfied that his preven-
tive detention was necessary. The order of detention was, therefore, not 
vitiated. [851E] 
E 
F 
Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad, [1986] 4 SCC 416; 
Ramesh war Shaw v. District Magistrate Burdwan, (1964] 4 SCR 921; 
Kartic Chandra Guha v. State of West Bengal, [1975] 3 SCC 490; Dr. 
Ramakrishna Rawat v. District Magistrate, Jabalpur, (1975] 4 SCC 164 
Vijay Kumar v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, i1982] 2 SCC 43; Merugu 
"1' Satyanarayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh, [1982] 3 SCC 301 and Suraj G 
Pal Sahu v. State of Maharashtra, (1986] 4SCC 378, referred to. 
CRIMINAL 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition 
(Cr!.) No. 408 of 1987. 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India). 
H 
842 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1987] 3 S.C.R

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