State of U.P. Vs. Shakeel Ahmed
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appoeal No. 1577 Of 1995
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.1621 of 1995)
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.1621 of 1995)
Petitioner: State of U.P.
Respondent: Shakeel Ahmed
Apeal: Criminal Appoeal No. 1577 Of 1995
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.1621 of 1995)
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.1621 of 1995)
Judges: K. RAMASWAMY & S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Nov 28, 1995
Head Note:
PREVENTIVE DETENTION
Representation
Representation – Delay of 23 days in consideration of representation, held not fatal, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case – Supply of the copy of the report of the sponsoring authority is not mandatory under Art. 22(5) – Order of the High Court quashing the order of detention held illegal – COFEPOSA, section 3(1)(iii).
Constitution of India
Article 22(5) – Preventive detention – Supply of the copy of the report of sponsoring authority to the detenu is not mandatory and non supply of the same is not fatal to the detention order.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. Though the respondent has been served, he does not appear either in person or through counsel. Notice is sufficient.
2. Leave granted.
3. The respondent was detained on July 31, 1989 under Section 3 (1) (iii) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act. When he challenged the order of detention, the High Court in the impugned order dated July 25, 1990 made in W.P. No.2029 of 1990 set aside the order of detention on the ground that the delay in non-consideration of the representation for one month, i.e., from February 20, 1990 to March 15, 1990, was not explained and also on the ground that copy of the report of the sponsoring authority had not been supplied to the detenu which violates Article 22 (5) of the Constitution. We are of the opinion that the High Court was not right in setting aside the order of detention on these grounds. It is not mandatory that the report of the sponsoring authority should be supplied to the detenu under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution. It is only a material furnished to the detaining authority. All the material on which reliance was place for order of detention was admittedly supplied to the detenu. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the delay in disposal of the representation of about 23 days also is not fatal.
4. Under these circumstances, the order of the High Court setting aside the detention order is clearly illegal. However, since the period has already expired, we do not think that it is a case warranting further detention of the respondent.
5. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
1. Though the respondent has been served, he does not appear either in person or through counsel. Notice is sufficient.
2. Leave granted.
3. The respondent was detained on July 31, 1989 under Section 3 (1) (iii) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act. When he challenged the order of detention, the High Court in the impugned order dated July 25, 1990 made in W.P. No.2029 of 1990 set aside the order of detention on the ground that the delay in non-consideration of the representation for one month, i.e., from February 20, 1990 to March 15, 1990, was not explained and also on the ground that copy of the report of the sponsoring authority had not been supplied to the detenu which violates Article 22 (5) of the Constitution. We are of the opinion that the High Court was not right in setting aside the order of detention on these grounds. It is not mandatory that the report of the sponsoring authority should be supplied to the detenu under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution. It is only a material furnished to the detaining authority. All the material on which reliance was place for order of detention was admittedly supplied to the detenu. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the delay in disposal of the representation of about 23 days also is not fatal.
4. Under these circumstances, the order of the High Court setting aside the detention order is clearly illegal. However, since the period has already expired, we do not think that it is a case warranting further detention of the respondent.
5. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
