2006 (9) TMI 577 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues involved: Challenge to detention orders u/s 3(1)(i) of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974.

The judgment of the Madras High Court in the case involved the challenge to detention orders passed under Section 3(1)(i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. The petitioners contended that the detaining authority failed to consider the retraction letter before accepting the inculpatory statement, leading to the vitiation of the detention order. The Court examined the grounds of detention and found that the detaining authority did not record its opinion on the rejection of the retraction letter, as required by legal principles established in previous cases.

The Court referred to the Supreme Court decision in K. T. M. S. Mohd. case, emphasizing the importance of the detaining authority subjectively applying its mind to the retraction of an inculpatory statement before accepting it. Failure to do so could render the detention order invalid. Citing the precedent set in A. E. Peer Mohammed case, the Court reiterated that the detaining authority must consider and reject the retraction during the process of passing the detention order to avoid vitiation.

In another case, the Court highlighted the necessity for the detaining authority to provide a specific conclusion on the retracted statement, as mere reference to the retraction is insufficient. The Court observed that failure to record an opinion before accepting the inculpatory statement would vitiate the detention order, in line with legal principles established by previous judgments.

Upon verifying the detention order and grounds of detention, the Court found that the detaining authority did not independently apply his mind to the retraction letter, leading to the conclusion that the detention order should be quashed. Additionally, considering the duration of detention, the Court referred to a Supreme Court case where the order of detention was quashed due to the extended period of detention. Consequently, the Court ordered the release of the detenus forthwith, unless required in any other case or cause.

Given similar grounds raised in other petitions with detention dates in January 2006, the Court directed the release of those detenus as well, quashing the respective detention orders. In conclusion, all the habeas corpus petitions challenging the detention orders were allowed, leading to the release of the detenus unless required in any other case or cause.