Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases FEMA FEMA + SC FEMA - 1984 (2) TMI SC This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1984 (2) TMI 316 - SC - FEMA


Issues:
1. Validity of the order of detention under COFEPOSA.
2. Supply of copies of documents to the respondent.
3. Application of mind by the Detaining Authority.
4. Maintainability of the petition under Art. 226 and s. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
5. Proceedings under ss. 6 and 7 of SAFEMA.

Validity of the order of detention under COFEPOSA:
The appeal challenged the judgment of the Bombay High Court declaring the order of detention under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1973 (COFEPOSA) as illegal and quashing the subsequent actions taken under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (SAFEMA). The High Court held that the respondent was not served with copies of documents relied upon in the grounds of detention, rendering the detention void ab initio. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision, emphasizing that failure to supply such documents vitiates the detention itself, citing precedents where similar failures led to detention being deemed unlawful.

Supply of copies of documents to the respondent:
The central issue revolved around the non-supply of crucial documents to the respondent, which were referenced in the grounds of detention under COFEPOSA. The High Court found that the respondent was not provided with copies of these essential documents, hindering his ability to make an effective representation against the detention. The Supreme Court concurred, stating that the failure to supply such documents invalidated the detention and consequently rendered the subsequent actions under SAFEMA baseless and unsustainable in law.

Application of mind by the Detaining Authority:
The judgment also addressed the requirement for the Detaining Authority to apply its mind to the materials before passing the order of detention. While there was a disagreement between the judges on this aspect, both agreed that the failure to supply copies of essential documents to the respondent was a critical flaw leading to the detention being deemed invalid.

Maintainability of the petition under Art. 226 and s. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
The respondent had filed a petition challenging the validity of the order of detention under COFEPOSA and subsequent actions under SAFEMA. The High Court deemed the petition maintainable, a decision upheld by the Supreme Court. The Court emphasized that the respondent's right to challenge the detention could not be estopped by the fact that he did not contest it before his release, especially when the detention order was used as a basis for actions under SAFEMA.

Proceedings under ss. 6 and 7 of SAFEMA:
The judgment clarified that a valid order of detention under COFEPOSA was a prerequisite for initiating proceedings under ss. 6 and 7 of SAFEMA. As the order of detention was declared void due to the failure to supply essential documents, the actions taken under SAFEMA were deemed invalid and unsustainable. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to quash these actions based on the flawed detention order.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's judgment that the order of detention under COFEPOSA was illegal due to the failure to supply copies of essential documents to the respondent, leading to the subsequent actions under SAFEMA being baseless and unsustainable in law.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates