UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER versus VASANBHARTHI AND OTHERS

Citation: [1990] 1 S.C.R. 742 · Decided: 01-03-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

\ r 
)' . 
I 
1 
U.0.1. v. VASANBHARTHI [PANDIAN, J.I 
743 
had sufficient knowledge about his detention by virtue of the mittimus 
issued as well the place of detention. The High Court was, therefore, not 
justified in setting aside the order. [7450-E) 
2. The matter is remitted to the High Court for consideration of 
the other contentions raised by the detenu. He shall not be taken into 
custody to serve the unexpired period of detention till the matter is 
finally disposed of. [74SF-G) 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 750 of 1989. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.4.1988 of the Gujarat High 
Court in Sp!. Application No. 733 of 1987. 
Kapil Sibal, Additional Solicitor General, A. Sobba Rao and P. 
Parmeshwaran for the Appellants. 
Vineet Kumar and M.N. Shroff for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S. RATNA VEL PANDIAN, J. This criminal appeal preferred by 
the appellants, namely, Union of India and the Additional Secretary 
A 
B 
c 
D 
to the Government of India is against the judgment of the High Court 
E 
of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Special Criminal Application No. 733 of 
1987 dated 11.4.1988 quashing the order of detention dated 19.6.1987 
passed by the second appellant in exercise of the powers under sub-
section (1) of Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and 
Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 with a view to preventing 
the first respondent, Vasanbharthi Jivanbharthi from engaging in 
F 
transporting smuggled goods. It seems that the first respondent 
(detenu) has challenged the detention on numerous grounds. one of 
which being that none of the members of his household had been 
informed of the passing of the impugned order of detention and of the 
fact that the detenu had been taken into custody and also of the place 
where the detenu was detained. This ground was only subsequently 
G 
added by an amendment with the permission of the Court. The High 
Court holding that the detenu's relatives were not informed about the 
detention order or about the place where the detenu was detained in 
compliance with the observation by this Court in A.K. Roy v. Union of 
India, [1982) I SCC 271, concluded that the order has been vitiated by 
such non-compliance. Further, the High Court has rejected the plea of 
H 
A 
B 
744 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1990] I S.C.R. 
the appellants that the relatives of the detenu knew about the deten-
tion order as well the place of detention and stated as follows: 
"Hence if the relatives of the detenu have not been 
informed and even if from the record, it is found that the 
relatives had come to know about it from some source, the 
order of detention would most certainly be invalidated." 
In the result, the order of detention was quashed and the detenu 
was directed to be set as liberty. 
Mr. Kapil Sibal, the learned Additional Solicitor General has 
assailed the finding of the High Court stating that the respondent No. 
C 
1 (detenu) was already an undertrial prisoner and his relatives inclu-
sive of his maternal uncle had visited him at the jail within two days 
and, therefore, that the non-communication of a written intimation 
about the fact of passing of the order of detention and of the place of 
detention 'in pursuance of the detention order have no significance, and 
D 
as such the observation 111ade in A.K. Roy's case can hardly by availed 
of by the detenu and the order cannot said to be invalidated on that 
ground. This plea is taken specifically in paragraph 2 I and in Grounds 
I & II in paragraph 23 of the Special Leave Petition. Besides the above 
stand taken in the SLP, the appellants have reiterated the same in 
paragraph 9 of the application for ex-parte stay of the Order -of the 
I! High Court, the relevant portion of which reads thus: 
F 
"The affidavit in opposition was filed on behalf of the 
Union of India that the detenu was already under trial 
prisoner and his relatives in fact knew that and also that the 
maternal uncle had immediately, within two days, visited 
him at the jail. Therefore, it was not necessary to inform 
the relatives of his detention and place of detention, as 
contemplated in the decision of the Supreme Court 
reported in A.LR. 1982 SC 710 (A.K. Roy's case)." 
No counter is filed by the first respondent (detenu) in opposition 
0 
to the above plea of the appellants. 
l 
In the above background, we shall now examine whether the 
{'
High Court is justified in setting a

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