9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Delay in consideration of the petitioner's representation. 2. Detention order as a substitute for normal criminal proceedings. 3. Lack of grounds to suspect or apprehend prejudicial activities. Detailed Analysis: 1. Delay in consideration of the petitioner's representation: The petitioner argued that there was an unreasonable delay in considering his representation dated 1-7-1986, which was only decided on 11-8-1986. This delay of one month and 18 days was unexplained, violating Article 22(5) of the Constitution. The court emphasized that any delay in considering a representation under preventive detention laws is not permissible. Citing the case of Saleh Mohd. v. Union of India, the court reiterated that the representation must be attended to with "watchful care and reasonable promptitude." The delay from 1-7-86 to 14-7-86 was not satisfactorily explained, and the absence of the Superintendent, Tihar Jail's affidavit was noted as a significant omission. Furthermore, the delay from 14-7-86 to 31-7-86 and subsequent delays were inadequately justified. The court found these delays amounted to a violation of Article 22(5), thus invalidating the detention order on this ground alone. 2. Detention order as a substitute for normal criminal proceedings: The petitioner contended that the detention order was issued to thwart normal criminal and adjudication proceedings, as no show cause notice or complaint under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act had been initiated against him. The court observed that after the petitioner's arrest and subsequent release on bail, no further inquiries were conducted, nor was any additional material gathered. The detention order was passed after a gap of about 4 1/2 months without any new adverse activity from the petitioner. The court found this indicative of the detention order being punitive rather than preventive. The court highlighted that preventive detention should be a last resort and not a substitute for prosecution, especially when the petitioner could be prosecuted under punitive laws. 3. Lack of grounds to suspect or apprehend prejudicial activities: The petitioner argued that there were no grounds to suspect he would act in a manner prejudicial to the augmentation of foreign exchange. The court noted that the petitioner was not the main person behind the unauthorized transactions, and there was no evidence of foreign exchange or Indian currency recovery from him. The court found that the petitioner appeared to be a "simpliciter smuggler of foreign goods with no previous history," and preventive detention was not justified. The court emphasized that the detaining authority must provide material evidence to justify detention, which was lacking in this case. Conclusion: The court allowed the petition, stating that the petitioner should be set at liberty unless detained by a competent court or authority. The court found the delay in considering the representation, the punitive nature of the detention order, and the lack of grounds for suspecting prejudicial activities sufficient to quash the detention order.
|
