LexUNION OF INDIA versus AMRIT LAL MANCHANDA AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A UNION OF INDIA v. AMRIT LAL MANCHANDA AND ANR. FEBRUARY 16, 2004 B [DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] Preventive Detention- Nature of-Held, it is a preventive action and not punitive-Preservation of public order and security of state and society C paramount considerations-Decision based on discretion of executive- Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974-Section 3 (1). Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974-Section 3 (1)-Preventive detention-Necessity for-Order D of detention not executed for several months due to stay order of court- Proposed detenu contending that there was no necessity for detention after Such lapse of time-Held, detenu cannot fake unfair advantage of his own acts. Constitution of India-Article 141-Judgment-Binding nature of-Held, E judgments are not statute-Factual background in which judgment has been passed should be looked into. An order of detention of the respondent was passed under Section 3 (1) of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 on 31.10.2001. The respondent filed a writ petition F challenging the dletention order and the sllid order was stayed by the High Court. The respondent was therefore, not detained. Finally, on 31.5.2002, the High Court dismissed the writ petition of the respondent. The respondent filed review petition before the High Court. The respondent contended that his detention was not desirable in view of the G long passage of time that had elapsed between the order of the detention and the date on which the writ petition was taken up for hearing by the High Court. High Court allowed the review petition relying upon Sunil Fulchand Shah v. Union of India and Ors,, [2000) 3 SCC 409. The appellant filed an appeal before the Court. Allowing the appeal, H 422 - • UNION OF INDIA v.. AMRIT LAL MANCHANDA 423 the Court. A HELD: 1.1. Preventive detention is an anticipatory measure and does not relate to an offence, while the criminal proceedings are to punish a person for an offence committed by him. They are not parallel proceedings. The object of the law of preventive detention is not punitive but only preventive. It is resorted to when the executive is convinced that such B detention is necessary in order to prevent the person detained from acting in a manner prejudicial to ce1·tain objects which are specified by the concerned law. (426-G-H) 1.2. The action of executive in detaining a person being only precautionary, normally the matter has necessarily to be left to the C discretion of the executive authority. It is not practicable to lay down objective rules of conduct in an exhaustive manner, the failure to conform to which should lead to detention. The satisfaction of the ~etaining Authority, therefore, is considered to be of primary importance, with great latitude in the exercise of its discretion. The Detaining Authority may act D on any material and on any information that it may have before it. Such material and information may merely afford basis for a sufficiently strong suspicion to take action, but may not satisfy the test of legal proof on which alone a conviction for offence will be tenable. (427-A-B) 1.3 The compulsions of the primordial need to maintain order in E society without which the enjoyment of all rights, including the right to personal liberty of citizens, would loose all their meanings provide the justification for the laws of preventive detention. Laws that provide for preventive detention posit that an individual's conduct prejudicial to the maintenance of public order or to the security of the State or corroding F financial base provides grounds for satisfaction for a reasonable prognostication of possible future manifestations of similar propensities on the part of the offender. The law has to be justified by striking the right balance between individual liberty on the one hand and the needs of an orderly society on the other. (427-B-F) 2. Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factmd situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. Observations of Courts are neither to be read as Euclid's theorems not as provisions of the statute and that too taken out of their context. These observations must be read in the context in G H 424 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] 2
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.