SYED FAROOQ MOHAMMAD versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

Citation: [1990] 3 S.C.R. 240 · Decided: 14-05-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.C. RAY · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

B 
c 
SYED FAROOQ MOHAMMAD 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 
MAY 14, 1990 
[B.C. RAY AND P.B. SAWANT, JJ.] 
Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic 
Substances Act, 1988: Section 3( 1) and 8. 
Preventive detention-'Live and proximate link' is necessary 
between grounds of detention and purpose of detention-Long and 
unexplained delay between the date of detention order and the arrest of 
detenu-Court can assume that link is snapped-But if delay is because 
of detenu's recalcitrant conduct in evading arrest then link is not snap-
ped but strengthened. 
D 
Preventive detention-Counter affidavit-Not sworn by detaining 
authority himself-A verments in the affidavit whether to be taken note 
of-In the absence of detaining authority the affidavit should be sworn 
by a responsible officer who personally dealt with the case. 
Constitution of India, 1950: Article 22(5). Preventive detention-
E 
Detention order-Non-supply of documents not considered by detain-
ing authority-Held not prejudicial to detenu in making effective 
representation. 
On July 19, 1989, the Customs Department seized narcotic drugs 
from two cars--one belonging to the petitioner-detenu and the other to 
F bis associate. The statements of the drivers were recorded under 
Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 on the very next day. Reports of 
the chemical examination of the seized drugs confirmed that they were 
narcoting drugs under the prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs 
& Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988. Accordingly, with a view to pre-
venting •the petitioner from engaging in abetting and transportation of 
G narcotic drugs the detaining authority passed a detention order under 
Section 3(1) of the Act on 20th December, 1989 i.e. after about 5 months 
of seizure .of .the narcotic drugs. But the petitioner was arrested and 
detained on service of the order of detention on 15th February, 1990. 
The petitioner tiled a writ petition in this Court challenging the 
H validity of the detention order contending; (I) that it was illegal because 
240 
·"'-
S.F. MOHAMMAD v. tJ.0.1. 
241 
(a) there was inordinate delay in serving the detention order and arrest-
ing the detenu; (b) it was passed on stale ground i.e. after five· monthS of 
the seizure of narcotic drugs; and ( c) there was long delay in disposing 
the detenu's representation; (2) the non-supply of relevant documents 
i.e. bail application and the order made thereon to the detenu seriously 
prejudiced his right to make effective representation under Article 
22(5) of the Constitution; (3) the averments made in the counter-
affidavit cannot be taken into consideration because it was not sworn by 
the detaining authority himself and ( 4) the detention order was vitiated 
for non-application of mind. 
Dismissing the writ petition, this Court, 
HELD: 1. There must be a 'live and proximate link' between the 
grounds of detention and t_he avowed pu•pose of detention. But in 
appropriate cases the Court can assume that the link is 'snapped' if 
there is a long and unexplained delay between the date ofthe order of 
detention and the arrest of the detenu. Where the delay is not only 
adequately explained but is found to be the result of the detenu's 
recalcitrant or refractory conduct in evading arrest, there is warrant to 
consider the 'link' not snapped but strengthened. [2SIF·GI 
2.1 In the instant case, the averments that the Depqrtment served 
A 
B 
c 
two notices-one on the petitioner's mother and another on his brother• 
directing him to appear before the detaining authority have not been 
E 
denied by the petitioner. Instead he intentionally absconded and 
thereby evaded arrest. "therefore, it cannot he said that the delay was 
not explained and the link between the grounds of detention and the 
avowed purpose of detention has been snapped. (2518; 25:2A-B] 
Shafiq Ahmad v. District Magistrate Meerut and Ors., (1989] 4 
F 
SCC 556; Bhanwarlal Ganeshmalji v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr., 
(1979] 2 SCR 633and T.A. Abdul Rahman v. State of Kera/a and Ors., 
(1989] 4 sec 741, relied on. 
2. In the instant case the cars containing brown· sugar were 
impounded on July 19, 1989 and statements of the drivers were 
G 
recorded next day. Reports of the chemical examination of contraband 
drugs were received on 29th September, 1989, 13th October, 1989 and 
16th November, 1989. !he customs oft'icials screened' all these things 
and the detaining authority after considering an these"t

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