LexSTATE OF GUJARAT versus CHAMANLAL MANJIBHAI SONI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
II
500
STATE OF GUJARAT
v.
CHAMANLAL MANJIBHAI SONI
January 8, 1981
[S. MURTAZA FAZAL Au AND A. VARADARAJAN, JJ.]
Conservation of Foreign Exchange & Prevention of Smuggling Activities
Act, 1974, .~ection SA, interpretation of.
}i{aintaining the order of the High Court quashing
the
detention,
the
Court
HELD : (I) The detention under section 3 of the COFEPOSA
is only
for the purpose of preventing smuggling and all the grounds, \\'hether there
are one or more, \\'Ould be relatable only to various activities of smuggling
and no other sepa-rat'e ground which could deal with
matters
other
than
smuggling could be conceived of because the Act of smuggling covers several
activities each forming a separate ground of detention and the
Act
deals
with no other act except smuggling.
Indeed, if the interpretation, namely,
that Section 5A contemplates that there should be only one' ground which
relates to the violation of section 3 of the Act and if that ground is irrelevant
while the other grounds which relate· to the same subject rnatter are clear
and specific the detention order will not stand vitiated, is
accepted,
then
section 5A will become otiose. [501 H, 502 A-q
(2) Whenever allegations of smuggling are made against a person who
is sought to be deta-ined for preventing further smuggling, there is
bound
to be one act or several acts with the con1mon object of smuggling gocxls
wltlch is sought to be prevented by the Act.
Jt would, therefore, not be
correct to My that the object of the Act constitutes the ground for deten·
tion. If this is so, in no case there could be any other ground for detention,
except the one which relates to smuggling. This is neither the object of the
Act nor ca!l such an object be spelt out from the language in which
sec~
tion 5A is couched. What section 5 (A) of the Act provides is that where
there are a number of grounds of detention covering various activities of the
detenu spreading over a period or periods, ea-ch activity is a separate ground
by itself and if one of the grounds is irrelevant, vague or unspecific,
then
that will not vitiate the ordep of detention on the other grounds.
[502 H, 503 A)
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 91 of
...
f
~
\
19m
~
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated
22-12-1978 of the Gujarat High Court in Criminal Application No.
245/78.
M. N. Phadke and M. N. Shroff for the Appellant.
J. G. Shah, Vineet Kumar and Ashok Kaul for the Respondent.
-
•
GUJARAT V. C. M. SONI (Fa.zal Ali, J.)
501
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
FAZAL ALI, J.-This appeal by special leave is directed against
. tbe judgment of the Gujarat High Court dated December 22, 1978 in
a Criminal Habeas Corpug Writ for quashing the order of detention
PMl!ed against the detenu.
'I1Je detenu was arrested on October 20,
1978 and grounds of detention were sefved on him that very day.
The High Court allowed the Writ Petition mainly on the ground that,
as one of the grounds, namely, ground No. 7 was irrelevant, the entire
order of detention is vitiated. In corning to this finding,
the High
Court, has put, in our opinion, a wrong interpretation on Sec. 5 (A)
Of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling
Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Section SA
reads thus:
,,.: .
. .
"SA. Ground9 of detention severable.-Where a person
has been detained in pursuance ol' an order of detention
under sub-section (1) of section 3 which has been made o'n
two or more grounds, such order of detention shall be deem-
ed to have been made separately on each of snch grounds
and accordingly-
( a) such order shall no't be deemed to be invalid or in-
operative merely because one or some of the grounds
is or are-
(i) vague,
(ii) non-existent,
(iii) not relevant,
(iv) not connected or not proximately connected with
S'Uch person, or
·~
(v) invalid for any other reason whatsoever,
and it is not therefore possible to bold that the
Government or officer making such order would
have been satisfied as provided in sub-section
(1) of section 3 with reference to the remaining
ground or grounds and made the order of
detention,
(b) the Government or officer making the order of
detention shall be deemed to have made the order of
detention under the said snb-section ( 1) after being
satisfied as provided in that sub-section with referenceExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.