T.A. ABDUL RAHMAN versus STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.

Citation: [1989] 3 S.C.R. 945 · Decided: 23-08-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.C. RAY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

T.A. ABDUL RAHMAN 
A 
v. 
STATE OF KERALA AND ORS. 
AUGUST 23, 1989 
I ' 
[B.C. RAY ANDS. RATNAVEL PANDIAN, JJ.] 
B 
\ 
Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling 
Activities Act, 1974-Section 3(J)(iii) & 3(J)(iv)-Detention order-
Time lag between the passing of the detention order and the actual 
"T arrest-Whether affects the subjeciive satisfaction of the detaining 
authority-Legality of such detention order-Challenged. 
~ 
c 
This appeal bas been filed by the brother of the detenu T .A. 
Sirajudeen who was detained pursuant to an order of detention passed 
by the first respondent under Section 3(l)(iii) and 3(l)(iv) l'fthe Conser-
vation of Foreign Exchange and Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 with a 
view to preventing the said detenu to take part in the smuggling 
D 
activities of Gold. The circumstances under which the detention order 
in question was passed may now be stated. 
'i 
On 30.11.1986, Snperintendent of Central Excise, Manjeri Range 
,,,,. 
searched the residential premises of the detenu but did not discover any 
contraband goods. However on questioning the detenu confessed that 
E 
he had hurried eleven gold biscuits in the back yard, which were 
recovered after digging the ground and the statement of the detenu was 
recorded under Section 1()8 of the Customs Act, that very day. 
" 
On 9.12.1986 again the Authorities concerned searched the resi-
dence of the detenu in the belief that there was concealment of more 
F 
gold. During the search the detenu pointed out to the Superintendent 
one packet which had been placed in the thatched roofing of the house. 
The detaining authority taking into consideration the fact of 
seizure effected on two occasions and the statement of the detenu admit-
ting his involvement in the prejudicial activities mentioned in the 
G 
grounds of detention reached subjective satisfaction and passed the 
> 
impugned order of detention on 7 .10.87. The detenu was arrested on 
18.1.1988 and detained in Central Prison, Trivandrum from 19.1.1988 
onwards Grounds of detention and other relevant material were 
furnished to the detenu on 21.1.1988. The detenu made representation 
for revocation of the detention order on 25.1.1988 which was rejected 
H 
945 
A 
B 
c 
946 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1989] 3 S.C.R. 
on 11.4.1988. The first respondent made a reference und.r Section 8 of 
the Act on 5.5.88 to the Advisory Board which reported that in its 
opinion sufficient cause existed for t_he detention of the detenu. 
The appellant challenged the detention of his brother in the High 
Court by means of Writ Petition but, having failed, he filed this appeal 
by special leave. 
The appellant primarily urged two contentions before this Court. 
It was urged that there was no proximity in time to provide a rational 
nexus between the alleged prejudicial activity and the passing of the 
impugned order of detention after II months i.e. on 7.J0.87 and as 
there was no reasonable and satisfactory explanation for the said long 
delay, the detention order is liable to be quashed on the ground that the 
credible chain between the grounds of the alleged criminal activities and 
the purpose of detention stood snapped. The delay throws doubt on the 
genuineness of the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining 
authority. Secondly it was contended that the representation submitted 
D 
by the detenu on 25. I.88 challenging the impugned order clamped on 
him had been disposed of by a delay of 72 days i.e. on ll.4.88 and this 
long and avoidable delay vitiates the detention order being violative of 
Art. 22(5) of the Constitution. 
The first respondent in the counter affidavit explained the delay 
E and attributed the same to the extensive search of various premises in 
different places and examination of persons apart from departmental 
delays. It is only after completing the necessary investigation customs 
authorities sponsored the case for detention of the detenu. 
F 
Allowing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD: There is no denying the fact that the impugned order has 
been passed after lapse of JI months from the date of seizure of the 
eleven gold biscuits from the back courtyard of the house of the detenu. 
The test of proximity is not a rigid or mechanical test by merely count-
ing number of months between the offending acts and the order of 
G detention. However, when there is undue and long delay between the 
prejudicial activity and the passing of the detention order, the co

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