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

Citation: [1987] 2 S.C.R. 1123 · Decided: 22-04-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.P. SEN · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

SMT. POONAM LATA 
A 
v. 
M.L. WADHAWAN & ORS. 
' 
,...[~- \ 
APRIL 22, 1987 
! 
i 
. 
[A.P. SEN AND RANGANATH MISRA, JJ.] 
B 
Conservation of Foreign· Exchange & Prevention of Smuggling 
Activities Act, 1974: ss. 3 & 12-Preventive detention-Period of 
,.., 
parole-Whether could be added to period of detention-Court whether 
competent to grant parole. 
~ ri-
c 
Constitution of India: Articles 226 and 32-COFEPOSA Act-
Preyentive detention-Powers of the Court to release on parole. 
-..\ 
Words & Phrases: 'Parole'-'detain'-Meaningof. 
D 
Sub-section (6) of s. 12 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange 
and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act. 1974 prohibits release of a 
detenu on hail, or bail bond or otherwise, during the period a detention 
order is in force. Suh-sections (I) and (IA) of s. 12, however, permit 
temporary release by the Central or State Governments on certain 
E 
terms a.nd conditions. Section 10 provides for a maximum period of 
) 
detention of one year In cases to which provisions of s. 9 do not apply. 
~ 
The husba"d of the petitioner was detained under s. 3(1) of the 
Act by an order d11ted February 28, 1986. His representation under s. 
8(b) was rejected by the detaining authority on April 4, 1986. The 
F 
Advisory Board in its sittings on April 28, and 29, 1986 concluded that 
there was sufTicient cause for detentiou. The order of detention was 
~ 
confirmed by the Minister on May 14, 1986. 
The writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution on 
G 
April 23, 1986 was heard by the Vacation Judge on May 15, 1986 who 
made an order for the release of the detenu on parole and directed the 
matter to be listed in early August of 1986. The case, however, could 
not be listed till January 14, 1987, and was finally heard on March 3, 
1987. The detenu had been out of jail during the entire period. The 
period of one year expired on February 28, 1987. 
H 
1123 
I 124 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1987) 2 S.C.R. 
A 
It was contended for the petitioner that the period of parole from 
May 15, 1986 till February 28, 1987 could not be added to the period of 
detention specified in the order under sub-s. (1) of s. 3 of the Act, ·that'·.,_. 
II.
the period of qne year from the date of detention having expired .in 
I 
February 28, 1987 the order of detention had lapsed entitling the detenu 
to be freed, and that once the detenu is taken into custody under the Act 
B 
pursuant to an order of detention the running of time would not be 
arrested merely because the court directs the release of the detenu on 
parole. Relying on the decision in Lala Jairam Das & Ors. v. Emperor. 
(AIR 1945 PC 94) it was contended that the court cannot on general 
.:.. 
principles add the period of bail or parole to the period of detention, 
and that the ratio laid down in Amritlal Channumal Jain etc: v. State of 
c~ -
C 
Gujarat & Ors., (W.P. Nos. 1342-43 of 1982 decided on July IO, 1985) 
that the period during which a detenu was on parole should be taken 
into account while calculating the period of detention has to prevail and 
D 
E 
F 
must be taken as binding. 
) . 
. Dismissing the writ petition. the Court. 
HELD: I. The period of parole of the detenu from May 15, 1986 
to February 28, 1987 has to be excluded in reckoning the period of 
his detention for one year under sub-s. (1) of s. 3 of the Conserva-
tion of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 
1974. [1136D, G-H] 
2.1 The purpose and object of s. IO of the Act is to prescribe not 
only a maximum period for which a person against whom a detention 
order under the Act is made may be held in actual custody pursuant to 
the said order but also the method by which the period is to be com-
puted. The key to the interpretation of the section is in the words "may 
be detained." The subsequent words "from the date of detention" 
which follow the words "maximum period of one year" merely define 
i 
the starting point from which the maximum period of detention of one y 
year is to be reckoned in a case not falling under s. 9. There is no 
justifiable reason why the word "detain" should not receive its plain 
and natural meaning 'to hold in custody'. [1134B; 1133G, EP] 
G 
2.2 The period during which the detenu is on parole cannot be 
said to be a period during which he has been held in custody pursuant to 
the order of his detention. In such a case he was not in actual custody. 
~ 
The order of detention prescribes the place where the detenu is to be 
det

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