1990 (4) TMI 285 - SC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of detention order while the detenu was in judicial custody.
2. Awareness of the detaining authority about the detenu's judicial custody.
3. Consideration of the detenu's representation by the detaining authority.
4. Delay in serving the detention order.

Summary:

1. Validity of Detention Order While the Detenu Was in Judicial Custody:
The detenu was detained u/s 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act by an order dated 13-7-89. The detenu challenged the detention on the ground that he was already in judicial custody and there was no imminent possibility of his release. The Court referred to several precedents, including *Abdul Razak Abdul Wahab Sheikh v. S. N. Sinha* and *Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad*, which emphasized that preventive detention should not be exercised if there is no imminent possibility of release. However, the Court noted that the detaining authority was aware of the detenu's judicial custody and the possibility of his release on bail, thus justifying the detention order.

2. Awareness of the Detaining Authority About the Detenu's Judicial Custody:
The detaining authority noted in the grounds of detention that the detenu and his co-accused were in judicial custody and that there was a possibility of their release on bail. The Court found that the detaining authority had considered the relevant circumstances and was aware of the detenu's judicial custody, satisfying the requirement of awareness as laid down in *Vijay Kumar v. State of Jammu and Kashmir* and *Ramakrishna Rawat v. District Magistrate, Jabalpur*.

3. Consideration of the Detenu's Representation by the Detaining Authority:
The detenu's counsel argued that the detaining authority did not properly consider the representation, particularly the allegations of statements being recorded under torture and duress. The Court noted that the detaining authority had considered the allegations and found them to be false and baseless. The Court also referred to the detenu's retraction of his statement, indicating that the detaining authority had applied its mind in rejecting the representation.

4. Delay in Serving the Detention Order:
The detention order was passed on 13-7-89 but served on 24-7-89. The detenu's counsel argued that this delay violated Section 3(3) of the Act. The Court found that the delay was due to the time taken for translating the documents into Hindi and Gurumukhi, which constituted valid and sufficient reasons for the delay.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the submissions regarding non-application of mind by the detaining authority, improper consideration of the detenu's representation, and delay in serving the detention order. The Court upheld the detention order, emphasizing the detaining authority's awareness of the detenu's judicial custody and the possibility of his release on bail.