V.C. MOHAN versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] 2 S.C.R. 144 · Decided: 01-03-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: U.C. BANERJEE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
V.C. MOHAN 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
MARCH I, 2002 
[UMESH C. BANERJEE AND Y.K. SABHARWAL, JJ.] 
Customs Act, 1962/Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention 
of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974-Sections 124, 1278, 132 and 135/Section 
C 3(/)(i)-Preventive detention-Detenu charged under Customs Act-Detention 
;.... 
under COFEPOSA Act after 7 months of the charge-During release on bail, 
D 
detenu not involved in any illegal activities-Non-placement of relevant 
documents before the Detaining Authority by sponsoring authority-Held, non-
placement of the relevant materials is a serious lapse. Hence, the order of 
detention unlawful and illegal. 
Preventive detention-Constitutional sanction for-Held, is not without 
limitation-Conduct of Detaining Authority or Governmental Authority ought 
to be fair and reasonable-Constitution of India, 1950-Article 21. 
,>-
Petitioner/detenu was charged for offences under Sections 132 and 135 
E of Customs Act, 1962 for misdeclaration of Bill of Entry. After investigation, 
Customs Department seized goods from the petitioner and he was arrested. 
Subsequently he was enlarged on bail. On completion of investigation the 
Department issued show cause notice under Section 124 of Customs Act 
Thereafter, Petitioner filed application under Section 1278 of Customs 
F Act before Settlement Commission, which by its order directed the petitioner 
to make payment of additional duty. 
After 7 months from the date of charge, the detaining authority passed 
an order of detention under Section 3(1)(i) of Conservation of Foreign 
G Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling· Activities Act, 1974. However, the 
application before Settlement Commission and its Order were not placed 
before it. 
H 
During the period when the detenu was on bail, he admittedly did not 
indulge in any illegal activities. 
144 
-
V.C. MOHAN v. U.0.1. 
145 
Petitioner/detenu filed petition under Article 32 of the Constitution A 
challenging the detention. He contended that the detention was without 
authority of law and it infringed his fundamental rights since there was failure 
to place the application filed before the Settlement Commission and its order 
before the detaining authority. 
Allowing the petition, the Court 
HEW : 1. Non-placement of relevant materials before the detaining 
authority by the sponsoring authority is not only a lapse but a serious lapse 
B 
on the part of the officials resulting in the order of detention to be declared 
unlawful and illegal and thus resultantly cannot be sustained. It has a serious 
effect and definite in-road to petitioner's liberty without application of mind. C 
Non-placement of the order of payment of additional duty of the Settlement 
Commission has not-Only transgressed the rights of the petitioner but speaks 
volumes about the conduct .or the officials rendering the proceeding before 
the Detaining Authority vitiated. [150-F; 149-B-C] 
2. A statute has been engrafted in tlie Statute Book but that does not, 
however, mean and imply that the concerned official would be at liberty to 
whittle down the liberty of the citizens of the country. The constitutional 
sanction for preventive detention cannot be said to be without any limitation 
D 
and apprehending such a conduct of the concerned officials, the founding 
fathers probably laid down its safeguards from the misuse of the powers as E 
conferred. The hall mark of the concept of justice, as is available in the justice 
delivery system of the country is that the conduct of the Detaining Authority 
or as a matter of fact any governmental authority ought to be fair and 
reasonable. The accepted methodology of governmental working should 
always be in tune with the concept of fairness and not de hors the same-a F 
person is being placed under detention without trial and there is neither any 
scope for overzealous for acting in a manner without due and proper 
application of mind-in either of the situation law courts should be able to 
protect the individual from the administrative ipse dixit. (149-D-F] 
Rajindra v. Commissioner of Police, Nagpur Division and Anr., (1994) 2 G 
Suppl. SCC 716; Rajamma/v. State of Tamil Nadu and Anr., (1999) l SCC 417 
and Kundanbhai Du/abhai Shaikh v. Distt. Magistrate, Ahmedabad and Ors., 
(1996) 3 sec 195, referred to. 
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 
169 of 2001. 
H 
146 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2002] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of Ind

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