1978 (5) TMI 117 - SC - Indian Laws

Detenu release orders - Held that - Appeal allowed. Questions whether the confessional statements recorded on December 13 and 14, 1977 were voluntary statements or were statements which were obtained from the detenu under duress or whether the subsequent retraction of those statements by the detenu on December 22, 1977 was in the nature of an after thought, were primarily for the detaining authority to consider before deciding to issue the impugned detention order but since admittedly the aforesaid vital facts which would have influenced the mind of the detaining authority one way or the other were neither placed before nor considered by the detaining authority it must be held that there was non application of mind to the most material and vital facts vitiating the requisite satisfaction of the detaining authority thereby rendering the impugned detention order invalid and illegal. For these reasons we set aside the impugned detention order.

Issues Involved:
1. Procedural safeguards and non-application of mind by the detaining authority.
2. Allegations of duress and wrongful restraint during interrogation.
3. Retraction of confessional statements.
4. Presence of legal counsel during interrogation.

Detailed Analysis:

Procedural Safeguards and Non-Application of Mind by the Detaining Authority:
The appellant challenged the detention order on the grounds that procedural safeguards were not followed, leading to non-application of mind by the detaining authority. The detenu was detained under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA). The detenu's wife argued that the detaining authority did not consider the circumstances under which the confessional statements were recorded, particularly the facts that transpired during the interrogation and the subsequent retraction of those statements. The Supreme Court found merit in this argument, stating that the subjective satisfaction required for the detention order was vitiated due to the failure to consider these vital facts.

Allegations of Duress and Wrongful Restraint During Interrogation:
The detenu's counsel contended that the detenu was wrongfully restrained and kept in illegal custody by Customs officers beyond 24 hours, with the intention of obtaining confessional statements under duress. An advocate for the detenu had addressed a letter and a telegram on December 14, 1977, expressing these concerns. Although the Assistant Collector of Customs denied these allegations, the Supreme Court noted that these allegations were significant and should have been considered by the detaining authority. The Court emphasized that the detaining authority must act fairly and justly, and the failure to consider such material facts vitiates the detention order.

Retraction of Confessional Statements:
The detenu retracted his confessional statements on December 22, 1977, while in judicial custody, claiming that the earlier statements were not correct and were obtained under duress. This retraction was not communicated to the detaining authority. The Supreme Court held that the retraction was a vital fact that would have influenced the detaining authority's decision. The Court cited previous judgments to support the principle that the failure to consider material facts, such as the retraction of confessional statements, invalidates the subjective satisfaction required for a detention order.

Presence of Legal Counsel During Interrogation:
The detenu's advocate was not allowed to be present during the interrogation, despite making a request. The Supreme Court referred to the case of Nandini Satpathy, stating that the presence of a lawyer during interrogation is a constitutional claim in certain circumstances. The refusal to allow the advocate's presence or consultation was a significant fact that should have been communicated to the detaining authority. The Court noted that this refusal, along with other facts, would have influenced the detaining authority's decision.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction was vitiated due to the failure to consider vital facts, including the refusal to allow the advocate's presence during interrogation, the wrongful restraint allegations, and the retraction of confessional statements. Consequently, the detention order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

← Previous Next →