STATE OF U.P.
v.
SHAKEEL AHMED
NOVEMBER 28, 1995
[K. RAMASWAMY AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.]
Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Ac-
tivities Act, 1974: Section 3(1)(iii).
A
B
Detention OrdefL-Sponsoring authority-Report of--Not supplied to C
detenu-Material relied in support of detention order furnished to
detenu-Setting aside of detention order-Held not valid-Delay of one
month in disposal of detenue's representation held not fatal on the facts and
circumstances of the case.
A detention order passed against the respondent under section D
3 (1) (iii) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smug-
gling Activities Act, 1974 was set aside by the High Court on the grounds
that (i) there was delay in disposal of the detenue's representation; and (ii)
non-supply of report of the sponsoring authority to detenu was violative
or article 22(5) of the Constitution.
E
Allowing the State's appeal, this Court
HELD : It is not mandatory that the report of the sponsoring
authority should be supplied to the detenu under Article 22(5) of the
Constitution. It is only a material furnished to the detaining authority. In F
this case all the material on which reliance was placed for order of
detention was admittedly supplied to the detenu. In the circumstances the
delay in disposal of the representation of about 23 days also is not fatal.
Therefore, the order of the High Court setting aside the detention order
is clearly illegal. (738-D-F]
G
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.
1577 of 1995.
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.7.90 of the Allahabad High
Court in W.P. No. 2029 of 1990 (H.C.).
H
737
738
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A
AS. Pundir for the appellant.
B
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Though the respondent has been served, he does not appear either
in person or through counsel. Notice is sufficient.
Leave granted.
The respondent was detained on July 31, 1989 under Section 3 (l)(iii)
of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling
Activities Act. When he challenged the order of detention, the High Court
C in the impugned order dated July 25, 1990 made in W.P. No. 2029of1990
set aside the order of detention on the ground that the delay in non-con-
sideration of the representation for one month, i.e., from February 20, 1990
to March 15, 1990, was not explained and also on the ground that copy of
the report of the sponsoring authority had not been supplied to the detenu
D which violates Article 22 ( 5) of the Constitution. We are of the opinion that
the High Court was not right in setting aside the order of detention on
these grounds. It is not mandatory that the report of the sponsoring
authority should be supplied to the detenu under Article 22 (5) of the
Constitution. It is only a material furnished to the detaining authority. All
the material on which reliance was placed for order of detention was
E
admittedly supplied to the detenu. In the facts and circumstances of this
case, the delay in disposal of the representation of about 23 days also is
not fatal.
F
Under these circumstances, the order of the High Court setting aside
the detention order is clearly illegal. However, since the period has already
expired, we do not think that it is a case warranting further detention of
the respondent.
The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
T.N.A.
Appeal disposed of.
Lex