http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

PETITIONER: SATAR HABIB HAMDANI ETC

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: K.S. DILIPSINHJI & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT20/12/1985

BENCH: REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) BENCH: REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) KHALID, V. (J)

CITATION:  1986 AIR  418            1986 SCC  (1) 544  1985 SCALE  (2)1429  CITATOR INFO :  RF         1991 SC 672  (20)

ACT:      Conservation of  Foreign  Exchange  and  Prevention  of Smuggling Activities  Act, 1974. Section 9 - ’Detention’ and ’continued detention’  - Difference between - Advisory board - Duty  of Specifically consider and determine whether there is sufficient  cause for ’continued detention’ of the person concerned.

HEADNOTE:      An order  of detention  under the  COFEPOSA was made by the Additional  Secretary to the Government of India against the appellant,  and the  grounds of detention were served on him on  July 1,  1984. On  July 13,  1984 the  COFEPOSA  was amended.  Purporting  to  act  under  section  9(1)  of  the COFEPOSA  as   amended  the   Additional  Secretary  made  a declaration that  he was  satisfied that  the appellant  was likely to  abet the  smuggling of  goods into and through an area  highly   vulnerable  to   smuggling  as   defined   in Explanation 1  to section  9(1) of  the Act.  Thereafter the usual reference  to the  Advisory Board  was made  and after obtaining its  opinion the  Government of  India by an order dated December 22, 1984 confirmed the detention for a period of two years.      In the  appeals to  this Court,  it  was  contended  on behalf of  the appellants  that in  every case  where it was proposed to  have recourse  to s.  10 read  with s. 9 it was necessary for  the Advisory Board to state its opinion, that ’the continued  detention   of the  detenu was necessary and that in  a case  where the Advisory Board merely opined that ’the detention’  of the detenu was necessary, recourse could not be  had to  s. 10  read with  s. 9  so as  to enable the detenu to  be detained  for two  years. This  contention was answered on  behalf of  the respondents  through the counter affidavit by  contending, that once the Advisory Board gives an opinion affirming the detention it must be regarded as an opinion in  regard to  both the  aspects viz.  the  original ’detention’ and the ’continued detention’.      Allowing the Appeals, ^      HELD: 1. In the absence of the Advisory Board’s opinion

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

to the  effect  that  there  is  sufficient  cause  for  the ’continued 1062 detention’ of  the detenus,  their detention  for  a  period exceeding one  year is without legal sanction. More than one year has  lapsed since  the appellants  have been  detained. They are directed to be set at liberty forthwith. [1068 G]      2. The  scheme of  section 3,8,9  and  10  of  the  Act appears to  be that  while generally  the period for which a person may  be preventively  detained under  the COFEPOSA in connection with  the smuggling  activities may  not exceed a period of  one year,  in case of certain kinds of activities of smuggling  into, out  of, or  through  ’any  area  highly vulnerable to  smuggling’, the  period may  extend upto  two years. In  the latter event, a declaration is required to be made within  five weeks  of the  detention of such person in the manner provided by section 9(1) of the Act. [1067G; 1068 A]      3. In  a case to which s.9 applies, s.8 stands suitably amended, a  reference is  required to  be made  within  four months and  two weeks  by the  Government  to  the  Advisory Board, and  the Advisory  Board is  required  to  state  its opinion within five months and three weeks from the order of detention where there is sufficient cause for the ’continued detention’ of the person concerned. [1068 B]      4. The  two safeguards  provided to  the detenu against ’continued detention’  are the  application of  mind by  the specified authority before making a declaration under s.9(1) and the consideration of the question by the Advisory Board. [1068 C]      5. The  Advisory Board  is to  state  its  opinion  not merely  whether   detention  is   necessary,   but   whether ’continued detention’  is necessary. The Advisory Board will necessarily have  to go  behind the declaration under s.9 to consider the  question whether there is sufficient cause for ’continued detention’. [1068 C]      6. In  a case to which s.9 applies it is important that the Advisory  Board specifically  considers and  answers the question whether  in its  opinion there  is sufficient cause for the  ’continued detention’  of the  person concerned. If the Advisory  Board merely  states that the detention of the person is  necessary it is not for anyone else to supplement the  Advisory  Board’s  opinion  and  substitute  the  words ’continued detention’ for the word ’detention’. [1068 E]

JUDGMENT:      CRIMINAL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION :  Criminal Appeal No. 371 of 1985 etc. 1063      From the  Judgment and  Order dated  18.12.1984 of  the Gujarat High  Court in  Special Criminal Application No. 494 of 1984.      M.G. Karmali,  U.R. Lalit, Vineet Kumar and N.D.B. Raju for the Appellants.      V.C. Mahajan,  R.N.  Poddar,  Miss  Sushma  Rahlan  and Girish Chandra for the Respondents.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      CHINNAPPA REDDY,  J.  These  several  Criminal  Appeals raise a  common question  and may be disposed of by a single judgment. It is sufficient if we state that the facts in one case :  Criminal Appeal No. 371 of 1985. On 29.6.84 an order of detention  under the  COFEPOSA was made by the Additional Secretary to  the Government  of India,  Finance  Department

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

against Satar  Habib Hamdani.  The grounds of detention were served on him on July 1, 1984. On July 13, 1984 the COEEPOSA was amended  by  an  Ordinance  which  was  replaced  by  an Amending Act.  We will  presently refer to the provisions of the Act.  Purporting to  act under s.9(1) of the COFEPOSA as amended, the Additional Secretary to the Government of India made a  declaration that  he was  satisfied that ’Shri Satar Habib Hamdani  abets and  is likely to abet the smuggling of goods into  and through  Porbandar which  is an  area highly vulnerable to  smuggling, as  defined in  Explanation  1  to section 9(1)  of the  Conservation of  Foreign Exchange  and Prevention of  smuggling Activities  Act, 1974.’  Thereafter the usual reference to the Advisory Board was made and after obtaining the  opinion of the Advisory Board, the Government of India,  by an order dated December 22, 1984 confirmed the detention of  Satar Habib Hamdani for a period of two years. The order was as follows :           "WHEREAS an  order F.No.673/75/84-Cus.  VIII dated           28/29 June, 1984 has been passed by the Additional           Secretary to  the Government  of India u/s 3(1) of           the   Conservation   of   Foreign   Exchange   and           Prevention  of   Smuggling  Act,   1974  for   the           detention of  Shri Satar  Habib Hamdani  whereas a           declaration u/s  9(1) ibid  has been  made against           him by  the Additional Secretary to the Government           of India :           ANL WHEREAS  the case  of Shri  ....... was placed           before the  Advisory Board  who are of the opinion           that there is sufficient cause for his detention ; 1064           NOW,  THEREFORE,   in  exercise   of  the   powers           conferred by  section 8(f)  read with section 9(2)           of the  aforesaid Act, the Central Government here           - by  confirms the  aforesaid detention  order and           Satar Habib  Hamdani u/s  10 of  the said Act, the           said Shri  ........ be  detained for a period 1-7-           1984 two years from the date of his detention i.e.           from                                                  Sd/-                                          (A.N. AGNIHOTRI) UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA           Shri Satar Habib Hamdani,           Central COFEPOSA Detenu,           C/o Supdt. District Prison Rajkot."      The submission  of Shri Karmali learned counsel for the appellants who  presented the case neatly and with precision was that  in every  case  where  it  was  proposed  to  have recourse to  s.10 read  with s.9  it was  necessary for  the Advisory Board  to state  its opinion  that  ’the  continued detention’ of  the detenu  was necessary  and that in a case where the  Advisory Board merely opined that ’the detention’ of the  detenu was  necessary, recourse  could not be had to s.10 read with s.9 so as to enable the detenu to be detained for two  years. The answer to the claim of the appellant was stated in the counter affidavit as follows:           "With reference to para 10(xv) I submit that it is           not incumbent  upon the Advisory Board to send its           report to  the effect  that  there  is  sufficient           cause for continued detention once having observed           and reported  that there  was sufficient cause for           detention.  Once   the  Advisory  Board  gives  an           opinion  affirming   the  detention   it  must  be           regarded as  an opinion  in  regard  to  both  the           aspects  viz.   the  original  detention  and  the           continued detention  i.e. right  from the  date of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

         arrest till  the date  of giving opinion deny that           the  continued   detention  of  the  appellant  is           violative of sec.8(c) of the Act.      In order  to appreciate  the submission of Shri Karmali we may  refer to  the relevant provisions of the COFEPOSA as amended by  the Amending  Act of 1984. Section 3(1) empowers the authority  specified therein - 1065           "If  satisfied,   with  respect   to  any   person           (including a  foreigner), that,  with  a  view  to           preventing  him   from  acting   in   any   manner           prejudicial to the conservation or augmentation of           foreign exchange  or with a view to preventing him           from -           (i) smuggling goods, or           (ii) abetting the smuggling of goods, or           (iii) engaging  in transporting  or concealing  or           keeping smuggled goods, or           (iv) dealing  in smuggled  goods otherwise than by           engaging in  transporting or concealing or keeping           smuggled goods, or           (v) harbouring  persons engaged in smuggling goods           or in abetting the smuggling of goods,           It is  necessary so to do, make an order directing           that such person be detained."      Section 8  provides for  the Constitution  of  Advisory Boards,  prescribes   their  function  and  specifies  their procedure. For  the   purposes of  the present  case we  are concerned with  clauses (b).(c) and (f) which are as follows :-           "8. Advisory  Boards:- For  the purposes  of  sub-           clause (a)  of clause  (4), and  sub-clause (c) of           clause (7), of Article 22 of the Constitution, -           (a)..............................................           (b) save  as otherwise  provided in Section 9, the           appropriate Government  shall, within  five  weeks           from the  date of  detention of  a person  under a           detention  order   make  a  reference  in  respect           thereof to  the Advisory  Board constituted  under           clause (a)  to enable  the Advisory  Board to make           the report  under sub-clause  (a) of clause (4) of           Article 22 of the Constitution;           (c) the  Advisory Board  to which  a reference  is           made under  clause (b) shall after considering the           reference and  the materials  placed before it and           after calling  for such  further information as it           may deem necessary 1066           from the appropriate Government or from any person           called for  the purpose  through  the  appropriate           Government or from the person concerned, and if in           any particular  case, to considers it essential so           to do  or if  the person  concerned desires  to be           heard in  person, after  hearing  him  in  person,           prepare  its   report  specifying  in  a  separate           paragraph thereof its opinion as to whether or not           there is sufficient cause for the detention of the           person concerned and submit the same within eleven           weeks from  the date  of detention  of the  person           concerned;           (d).....................................           (e)......................................           (f) in  every case  where the  Advisory Board  has           reported that  there is  in its opinion sufficient           cause  for   the  detention   of  a   person,  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

         appropriate Government  may confirm  the detention           order and  continue the  detention of  the  person           concerned for  such period as it thinks fit and in           every case  where the  Advisory Board has reported           that there  is in  its opinion no sufficient cause           for the  detention of  the person  concerned,  the           appropriate Government  shall revoke the detention           order  and   cause  the   person  to  be  released           forthwith." Section 9(1)  empowers the  authority specified  therein  to make a  declaration that the person against whom an order of detention has been made           (a) smuggles  or is  likely to smuggle goods into,           out of  or through  any area  highly vulnerable to           smuggling; or           (b) abets  or is  likely to  abet the smuggling of           goods into,  out of  or through  any  area  highly           vulnerable to smuggling; or           (c) engages or is likely to engage in transporting           or concealing  or keeping  smuggled goods  in  any           area highly vulnerable to smuggling, Whereupon such  person may be detained without obtaining the opinion of an Advisory Board for a period longer than three 1067 Months but  not exceeding  six months  from the  date of his detention. Explanation  1 to  S.9(1)  defines  ’area  highly vulnerable to smuggling’.      Section 9(2) is important and it is as follows :-           "(2) In  the case  of any  person detained under a           detention order  to which  the provisions  of sub-           section (1)  apply, Section  8 shall  have  effect           subject to the following modifications, namely:-           (i) in  clause (b),  for the  words shall,  within           five weeks,  the wrods  "shall, within four months           and two weeks" shall be substituted:           (ii) in clause (c), -           (1) for  the words  the detention  of  the  person           concerned ,  the words  the continued detention of           the person concerned shall be substituted;           (2) for  the words  eleven weeks  the  words  five           months and three weeks shall be substituted;           (iii)  in  clause  (f),  for  the  words  for  the           detention ,  at both  the places where they occur,           the words  "for the  continued detention" shall be           substituted.      Section 10  stipulates the maximum period for which any person may  be detained pursuant to an order of detention to which the provisions of section 9 do not apply and which has been confirmed  under s.8(f)  as one  year from  the date of detention or  the specified  period; and, the maximum period for which any person may be detained pursuant to an order of detention to which the provisions of s.9 apply and which has been confirmed  under s.8(f)  read with  s.9(2) as two years from the  date of  detention, or the specified period. As we see, the scheme of section 3, 8, 9 and 10 appears to be that while generally  the  period  for  which  a  person  may  be preventively detained  under the COFEPOSA in connection with smuggling activites, may not exceed a period of one year, in case of  certain kinds  of activities of smuggling into, out of or through ’any area highly vulnerable to smuggling’, the period may  extend upto  two years.  In the  latter event  a declaration is required to be made within five weeks of 1068 the detention  of such  person in  the  manner  provided  by s.9(1) of  the Act.  That is  not enough. In a case to which

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6  

s.9 applies,  s.8 stands  suitably amended,  a reference  is required to  be made within four months and two weeks by the Government to  the Advisory  Board and the Advisory Board is required to  state its  opinion within five months and three weeks  from   the  order   of  detention  whether  there  is sufficient cause  for the continued detention’ of the person concerned. In  other words,  the Advisory  Board is to state its opinion  not merely  whether detention  is necessary but whether ’continued  detention’ is  necessary.  The  Advisory Board will  necessarily have  to go  behind the  declaration under s.9(1)  to consider  the  question  whether  there  is sufficient  cause   for  ’continued   detention’.  The   two safeguards  provided   to  the   detenu  against  ’continued detention’, at  that stage,  are the  application of mind by the specified  authority before  making a  declaration under s.9(1) and the consideration of the question by the Advisory Board. Section  8 is enacted and professedly enacted for the purpose of  Art.22, clause  (4), sub-clause  (a) and Art.22, clause(7), sub-clause(c) and s.9 expressly refers to Art.22, clause (4),  sub-clause(a). That  is why  in a case to which s.9  applies   it  is  important  that  the  Advisory  Board specifically considers  and answers  the question whether in its opinion  there is  sufficient cause  for the  ’continued detention’ of  the person  concerned. If  the Advisory Board merely states  that the detention of the person is necessary it is  not for  any one  else  to  supplement  the  Advisory Board’s opinion  and subsitute the words continued detention for the  word detention  . The  matter is of vital important for that.  The omission  of the words continued detention in the opinion  of the Advisory Board cannot be slurred over in the fashion  we are  invited to do in the counter affidavit. Nor can  we  treat  the  omission  as  a  mere  clerical  or typographical error when that is not the express case of the respondents. We  are of  the opinion  that in the absence of the Advisory  Board’s opinion  to the  effect that  there is sufficient  cause   to  the  ’continued  detention’  of  the detenus, their  detention for  period exceeding  one year is without legal  sanction. It  already much more than one year since the  appellants have  been detained. They are directed to be set at liberty forthwith. N.V.K.                                        Appeals allowe 1069