VINOD K. CHAWLA versus U.O.I. AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 651 · Decided: 18-08-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

VINOD K. CHAWLA 
v. 
U.0.1. AND ORS. 
AUGUST 18, 2006 
[K.G. BALA KRISHNAN AND G.P. MATHUR, JJ.], 
Conservalion and Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling 
Activilies Act, 1974-Section 3(/)-Detenlion order passed againsl detenu 
A 
B 
for large scale evasion of customs duty by imporling consumer electronic 
goods al grossly under-inoviced prices and circumvenling Jmporl and Expert C 
Policy-Delention order was served on /he delenue after more lhan a year 
soon after his arrest-Delenufiled Wril Petilion before High Cour/ challenging 
the dete/1/ion order on the ground that a vital documenl was no/ placed 
before the delaining authority which could affect the opinion; that there was 
inordinate delay in disposing of his representation to the delention order; D 
and thal in view of !he long period between the offending activities and the 
actual arrest, there is no ground for detaining !he detenu-High Court 
dismissed the Wril Petition-Correctness of-Held, law does not require !hat 
every document or material must necessarily be placed before detaining 
authority for forming an opinion-On facts, non-placement of the relevant 
docume/1/ did not affect the formation of opinion of the detaining author ii)~ E 
There was no inordina/e delay in disposing of the representation of !he 
delenu-Detention order cannot be rendered invalid on account of the own 
ac/ of the detenu by evading arrest for a long period. 
On the basis of the information that the appellant was indulging in large 
scale evasion of customs duty by importing consumer electronic goods at 
grously under-invoiced prices and circumventing Import and Export Policy 
F 
and remitting payments for the same through illegal channels, the 
respondents conducted simultaneous searches at residential, business and 
factory premises of the appellant wherein many incriminating articles and 
documents were recovered. A detention order under section 3(1) of the G 
Conservation and Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities 
Act, 1974 was passed. The detention order was served on the appellant after 
more than a year when he was arrested as he was absconding earlier. The 
representation made by the appellant was rejected by the respondents. The 
651 
H 
652 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A appellant filed a Writ Petition challenging the detention order which was 
dismissed by the High Court. 
In appeal to this Court, the appellant contended that a document 
recording the retraction statement made by the appellant's son was suppressed 
and not placed by sponsoring authority before the detaining authority; that 
B non-placement of the material document could affect the opinion of the 
detaining authority against him and hence the detention order passed against 
the appellant is illegal; that there was an inordinate unexplained delay in 
disposing of the representation to the detention order and hence his continued 
detention should be rendered illegal; and that the reasonable cause for 
C detaining him has snapped since there was a long time gap between his alleged 
activities and the serving of the detention order. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The law does not require that every document or material 
D in possession of sponsoring authority must necessarily by placed by him before 
the detaining authority and in every rase where any such document or 
material is not placed by the sponsoring authority before the detaining 
authority, the formation of opinion and the subjective satisfaction of the 
detaining authority would get vitiated. The mere fact that the sponsoring 
authority did not place the statement made by the son of the appellant before 
E the detaining authority, cannot lead to an inference that the formation of 
opinion and the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority was vitiated 
in any manner. [661-E-F; 662-E[ 
Abdul Sathar Ibrahim Manik v. Union of India and Ors., AIR (1991) 
SC 2261: [199211 SCC I; K. Varadhraj v. State of T.N. and Anr., [20021 6 
F SCC 735; M. Ahahmedukutty v. Union of India, [1990[ 2 SCC I; Sunila Jain 
v. Union of India, [2006[ 3 SCC 321; Ashadevi v. K. Shivraj, Addi. Chief 
Secretary to the Govt. of Gujarat, [ 1979[ I SCC 222; Ayya v. State of U.P., 
[ 1989[ I SCC 374 and Sita! Ram Somani v. State of Rajas than, [ 1986[ 2 SCC 
86, referred to. 
G 
2. The contention raised by the appellant that the detention should be 
rendered illegal since there was an inordinate unexplained delay

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