2004 (9) TMI 386 - SC - Companies Law

Whether a single incident in this case would be sufficient to detain the appellant? Held that - Appeal dismissed. The detenue who did not send any representation immediately on receipt of the detention order and the material accompanying therein deliberately tried to mislead the authorities by filing an undated and unsigned representation simultaneously to the State Government, the Union Government and the detaining authority which was sent to the Advisory Board knowing very well that this was likely to cause some delay, thus he has tried to mislead the authorities by the above act of his. Thus in agreement with the stand taken by the respondent-State that undated and unsigned representation cannot be treated as a representation within the meaning of Article 22(5) of the Constitution requiring immediate attention of the authorities concerned.

Summary

Issues:
- Challenge against the detention order under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange under Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Challenge Against Detention Order:
The appellant challenged the detention order of his brother under section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange under Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. The High Court dismissed the criminal writ petition, leading to the appeal in the Supreme Court. The detention was based on an incident at the airport where the detenu handed over foreign currency and mobile phones to another person. The High Court upheld the detention order, stating that it was valid even though based on a single incident.

2. Validity of Detention Based on Single Incident:
The appellant's counsel argued that a detention order based on a single incident should be quashed as it may not provide enough grounds for future illegal activities prediction. However, the Supreme Court clarified that there is no statutory provision against detaining based on a single incident if the authority has sufficient material to infer future illegal activities. The Court analyzed the circumstances of the case, including the detenu's travel patterns, work permit status, and the incident at the airport, concluding that the detention was justified.

3. Benefit of Co-Detenu's Release:
The appellant sought the benefit of release given to a co-detenu whose detention was quashed. The High Court had set aside the co-detenu's detention due to a minor error in the grounds of detention. However, the Supreme Court found that the error did not prejudice the detenu and was a typographical mistake. The Court referred to previous judgments where similar errors did not affect the detention order's validity.

4. Delay in Considering Representation:
The appellant raised a concern about the delay in considering his representation, alleging a violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution. The detaining authority explained that the representation was unsigned and undated, jointly addressed to multiple entities, causing a delay in processing. The Court agreed that such a representation did not require immediate attention and dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the delay argument.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the detention order, emphasizing the validity of detaining based on a single incident if supported by sufficient evidence. The Court also clarified the impact of typographical errors on detention orders and addressed the issue of delay in considering representations, ultimately dismissing the appeal.