Criminal Appeal No. 920-923 of 2001

INDERJEET AND ANR. v.

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

AUGUST 7, 2008

[Dr. Arijit Pasayat and Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, JJ]

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. In the present appeals, challenge is to the order of detention passed under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The  said  order  was passed  on  the  ground that  gold  was being smuggled  from abroad by the Inderjeet Singh, the appellant No.1.  He and the other appellant - Varinder Singh were intercepted on 17.12.1999 in the Customs Arrival  Hall at Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose International Airport, Calcutta.  They were found smuggling 77 pieces of gold bars of foreign origin weighing about 8.816 Kg. and valued at about Rs.39 Lacs. A  representation  was  made  to the detaining authorities to revoke the detention.  Representation was also made to the Advisory  Board   and   to   the Central   Government.   The representations  were  considered  and  rejected.  Writ petitions were filed before the Delhi High Court which were numbered as Criminal Writ Petition Nos.477 of 2000 and 479 of 2000. The main ground of challenge was that  the  Central  Government  did  not  dispose  of  the  representations  within  a reasonable time when the second representation was made.  Strong reliance was placed before the High Court on a decision of this Court in Smt. Gracy Vs. State of Kerala and Anr.  (44 (1991) Delhi Law Times – 1.  The High Court found that the decision had  no application and also the decision of this Court in Jasbir Singh Vs. Lt. Governor, Delhi and Anr. (1999 (4) SCC 228) had no application.  Therefore, the writ petitions were dismissed.  Subsequently, an application for review of the order dated 18.12.2000 was filed which was also dismissed.

2. Challenge in these appeals is to the aforesaid orders of the High Court.

3. None appears for the appellants.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the Union of India and respondent No.3 – the Superintendent of the Central Jail.   

5. At this juncture, it would be relevant to note that the ratio in Smt. Gracy’s case (Supra) was analysed by this Court in R. Keshava Vs. M.B. Prakash and Ors. (AIR 2001 SC 301).  It was inter-alia observed as follows:

“A perusal of  the aforesaid Section and other relevant provisions of  the Act makes it  abundantly clear that no duty is  cast  upon the Advisory Board to furnish the whole of the record and the representation addressed to it only to the Government along with its report prepared under Section 8(c) of the Act.  It may be appropriate for the Board to transmit the  whole record along with the report, if deemed expedient but  omission to send such record or report would not render the  detention illegal or  cast  an  obligation  upon the appropriate government to make inquiries for finding out as to  whether  the detenu has made any representation, to any person or authority, against his detention or not.  We are of  the opinion that in Gracy’s case (supra) it was not held that any such  duty  was cast  upon the Board  but  even if  the  observations   are stretched  to that extent, we  feel that those  observations were uncalled for in view of the  scheme of the Act and the mandate of the Constitution.   

In Nand Lal Bajaj  v.  State of Punjab & Anr.  [1981 (4) SCC 327] this Court made the following observations: “The matter can  be viewed from  another angle. We were informed  that the Advisory Board did not forward the record of its proceedings to  the State Government.  If  that be so, then the procedure adopted was not  in  consonance  with   the  procedure established by law. The State Government while confirming the detention order under Section 12 of the Act has not only to peruse the report of the Advisory Board, but also to apply its mind to the material on record. If  the record itself was not before the  State Government, it follows that the order passed  by the State Government under Section 12 of the Act was without due application of mind.  This is a serious infirmity in the case  which  makes  the continued detention  of the  detenu illegal.”

6. Apart from the fact that the period of detention is over, we also find that on merit, the appellants have not made out any case for interference.  The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.