9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1978 (11) TMI 149 - SC - CustomsWhether the detenu be set at liberty? Held that - There was no material before the 4th respondent for coming to the conclusion that the detenu engages in transporting smuggled goods. To this extent we have to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that there is no material for coming to the conclusion that the detenu was engaging himself in the unlawful activities. The detenu has been under detention from 4th July, 1977 and the period of detention permissible under section 3 is only one year. Section 9(1) enables the authority to make a declaration which would have the effect of extending the period of detention to two years from the date of detention by virtue of amendment to section 10 by Amending Act 20 of 1976. As we have found that the order under section 9(1) has not been validly made and as the detenu has been in detention for more than one year his continuance in detention is not sustainable. In the circumstances, we allow the petition.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the order passed under Section 9(1) of the COFEPOSAA. 2. Validity of the detention order passed under Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSAA. 3. Non-furnishing of important material to the detenu. 4. Vagueness of the grounds of detention. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Order Passed Under Section 9(1) of the COFEPOSAA: The appellant challenged the order dated 2nd August 1977 passed by the 4th respondent under Section 9(1) of the COFEPOSAA, arguing that the satisfaction arrived at by the respondent was mechanical and without application of mind. The Supreme Court agreed with this contention, noting that the impugned order did not provide material evidence for the conclusion that the detenu "engages and is likely to engage in transporting smuggled goods." The Court observed that the statements relied upon by the authorities related to incidents from 1973 and 1974, with no fresh incidents after the detenu's release in December 1974. The Court held that the order under Section 9(1) was invalid, and therefore, the detenu's continued detention beyond one year was not justified. 2. Validity of the Detention Order Passed Under Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSAA: The appellant argued that the detention order under Section 3(1) was invalid as the authority did not apply its mind and based the order on activities from 1973 and 1974. The Court refrained from addressing this contention in detail, as it had already upheld the challenge to the validity of the order under Section 9(1), which was sufficient to set the detenu at liberty. 3. Non-furnishing of Important Material to the Detenu: The appellant contended that the detenu was not provided with crucial material that must have influenced the detaining authority's decision. The Court did not delve into this issue, given its decision on the invalidity of the Section 9(1) order. 4. Vagueness of the Grounds of Detention: The appellant argued that the grounds of detention were vague and did not clearly specify whether they referred to incidents from 1973 and 1974 or activities subsequent to the detenu's release in December 1974. The Supreme Court did not address this issue in detail due to its ruling on the invalidity of the Section 9(1) order. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, declaring the order under Section 9(1) of the COFEPOSAA invalid due to the lack of material evidence supporting the detaining authority's satisfaction. Consequently, the detenu's continued detention beyond one year was deemed unsustainable, leading to the order for his immediate release. The Court did not find it necessary to address other contentions raised by the appellant, as the invalidity of the Section 9(1) order was sufficient to resolve the case.
|
