9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1989 (8) TMI 340 - SC - FEMAWhether the past activities of the detenu is such that from it a reasonable prognosis can be made as to the future conduct of the detenu and its utility, therefore, lies only in so far as it subserves that purpose and it cannot be allowed to dominate or drawn it? Held that - The representation of the detenu has not been given prompt and expeditious consideration, and was allowed to lie without being properly attended to. The explanation now offered by the third respondent that the delay has occurred in seeking the comments of the Collector of Customs etc. is not a convincing and acceptable explanation. In our view the delay in 72 days in the absence of satisfactory explanation is too long a period for ignoring the indolence on the part of the concerned authority. Hence we hold that the unexplained delay in disposal of the representation of the detenu is violative of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, rendering the order of detention invalid. Allow this criminal appeal by setting aside the judgment of the High Court, quash the impugned order of detention and direct the detenu to set at liberty forthwith.
Issues Involved:
1. Delay in passing the detention order. 2. Delay in securing the arrest of the detenu. 3. Delay in disposing of the detenu's representation. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Delay in Passing the Detention Order: The appellant contended that there was an undue delay of 11 months between the seizure of gold biscuits on 30.11.1986 and the passing of the detention order on 7.10.1987, which severed the rational nexus between the alleged prejudicial activity and the purpose of detention. The Supreme Court referenced several precedents, including *Golam Hussain alias Garna v. Commissioner of Police of Calcutta & Ors.* and *Gora v. State of West Bengal*, to establish that the test of proximity is not rigid or mechanical. The delay must be satisfactorily explained by the detaining authority. In this case, the first Respondent explained that the delay was due to extensive investigations and procedural requirements, which the Court found acceptable. 2. Delay in Securing the Arrest of the Detenu: The appellant argued that the delay of three months between the detention order on 7.10.1987 and the arrest on 18.1.1988 cast doubt on the genuineness of the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction. The Court noted that the first Respondent failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for this delay. The Superintendent of Police, Malappuram, who was responsible for executing the detention order, did not file any affidavit explaining the delay. The Court held that this unexplained delay undermined the genuineness of the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, thus vitiating the validity of the detention order. 3. Delay in Disposing of the Detenu's Representation: The appellant contended that the delay of 72 days in disposing of the representation submitted on 25.1.1988 was violative of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. The third Respondent explained that the delay was due to procedural steps, including obtaining comments from the Collector of Customs. However, the Court found this explanation unsatisfactory. Citing *Rama Dhondu Borade v. Shri V.K. Saraf Commissioner of Police & Ors.*, the Court emphasized that the representation must be considered with reasonable dispatch. The unexplained delay of 72 days was deemed too long, rendering the continued detention constitutionally impermissible and illegal. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the criminal appeal, quashed the impugned order of detention, and directed the immediate release of the detenu. The Court found that the unexplained delays in securing the arrest and disposing of the representation violated constitutional mandates, thereby invalidating the detention order.
|
