VIJAY KUMAR versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [1988] 3 S.C.R. 42 · Decided: 24-02-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. DUTT · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

VIJAY KUMAR 
'( 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
FEBRUARY 24, 1988 
B 
[MURARI MOHON DUIT AND 
K. JAGANNATHA SHEITY, JJ.] 
~\ 
Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling 
Activities Act, 1974--Chal/enging detention under. 
-r 
This appeal was directed against the judgment of the High Court 
c 
' 
whereby the High Court had dismissed the writ petition of the appel-
--+ 
lant, ·challenging the validity of his detention under the Conservation.of 
Foreign Exchange & Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 
('The Act'). 
D 
The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) had information 
that the appellant was engaged in receipt; storage and disposal of smug-
gled goods on a large scale. On· a specific information received on 
March 11, 1987, that large quantity of gold had been received hy the 
appellant and stored at his instance in various premises, the DRI 
mounted a discreet surveillance in the vicinity of the appellant's resi-
)-
E deuce, and seized 100 foreign-marked gold biscuits from Uttam Chand, 
a milk vendor. Uttam Chand disclosed that the said gold had been given 
to him by the appellant. He also disclosed that the appellant had given 
._..
him 300 gold biscuits, and the remaining 200 gold biscuits had been 
taken away from him by Raj Kumar alias Chhotu, the servant uf the 
appellant. Raj Kumar alias Chootu disclosed that he had delivered the 
·t--· 
F 
said 200 gold biscuits to one Bhuramal Jain. A search of Bhuramal 
Jain's residence resulted in the recovery of the said 200 gold biscuits. 
Thns, 300 smuggled gold biscuits were seized by the DRI officers on 
March 11, 1987. 
A provisional order of detention of the appellant dated April 1. 
G 
1987 was passed by the respondent No.2, the detaining authority, under 
section 3(1) of the Act, and duly communicated to the appellant along 
;-.. 
with the grounds of detention dated April I, 1987 by the detaining 
authority. 
The case of the -appellant was referred to the Advisory Board 
H constituted under sub-dause (a) of clause (4) of Article 22 of the Con-
42 
-
I 
-.,-f 
VIJAY KUMAR v. U.0.1. 
43 
stitution of India for its opinion, whereupon the Board submitted its 
report ditted May 13, 1987, and the Central Govt. by its order dated 
June 24, 1987, in exercise of its powers under section 8(t) of the.Act, 
confirmed the detention of the appellant, etc. 
At this stage, it might be mentioned that before the order of 
detention was passed by the detaining authority, the appellant had been 
arrested on a charge under section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962. 
The appellant challenged the order of detention as confirmed by 
the Central Government by a writ petition before the High Court which 
dismissed the same. Similar detention orders having been passed in 
respect of the said Uttam Chand, Bhuramal Jain and Raj Kumar alias 
Chhotu, they had also challenged their detentions by writ petitions 
before the High Court and the High Court had by the same judgment 
under appeal allowed their writ petitions and quashed the orders of 
detention. The appellant then appealed to this court for relief by special 
leave. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court, 
HELD: Per MurariMohon Dutt, J. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
It was not correct to say (as contended by counsel for the appel-
lant) that the. detaining authority was not aware of the fact that the 
E 
appellant was already in detention on a charge under section 135 of the 
Customs Act. The detaining authority was fully aware of the fact of the 
arrest of the appellant as was evident from paragraph 13 of the grounds 
of detention. It is not necessary that in the order of detention such 
awareness of the detaining authority has to be indicated. It is enough if 
it appears from the grounds of detention that the detaioiri~ authority is 
F 
aware of the fact that the detenu is already in detention. [SIC-El 
I! was true that in Uttam_ Chand's case, the detaining_ authority 
had proceeded. on the basis that the offence for which he had been 
arrested and detained, was a bailable offence. But the question whether 
or not a particular offence for which a detenu has been detained, is a 
G 
bailable or non-bailable offence, does not have any bearing on the 
question of passing an order of detention. Even though an offence is a 
non-bailable one, an accused may be enlarged on bail. Again, a11 
offence for which a detenu .has been put under detention, may be a 
bailable offence. [51E-F] 
H 
44 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
I 1988] 3 S.C.R. 
On a

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