1988 (1) TMI 177 - SC - Central Excise

Order of detention challenged - Held that - After considering the submissions, it is crystal clear that the documents though placed before the Detaining Authority for his consideration were not supplied to the appellant within 15 days from the date of the order of detention as provided under Section 3(3) of the said Act. It is also evident from the affidavit of Shri S.K. Chaudhary, Under Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi that on the request of the appellant by his representation dated 6th April, 1987, the documents were supplied to him on 24th April, 1987. The representation of the appellant was disposed of by the Advisory Board on 25th April, 1987. In these circumstances, it cannot be denied that the failure on the part of the Detaining Authority to supply the aforesaid material documents prevented the appellant from making an effective representation against the grounds of detention and as such the mandatory provisions of Article 22(5) have not been complied with. The order of detention in our considered opinion is, therefore, illegal and bad and the same is liable to be quashed. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge against detention order based on non-supply of vital documents for effective representation.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Background:
The appellant was detained under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, based on allegations of illegal activities related to foreign currency and gold.

2. Grounds of Detention:
The appellant challenged the detention order, claiming that essential documents supporting the detention were not provided to him promptly, hindering his ability to make an effective representation.

3. Representation and Delay:
The appellant made representations to the Detaining Authority and the Central Government, emphasizing his innocence and lack of ownership of premises where incriminating items were found. He also raised concerns about the delay in receiving necessary documents for his defense.

4. Counter Affidavit:
In response, the Detaining Authority and the Ministry of Finance filed a counter affidavit, asserting that all relevant documents were not relied upon in forming the detention order, thus justifying the delay in providing them to the appellant.

5. High Court Judgment:
The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition, citing that non-supply of all documents did not render the detention order illegal, as per the Detaining Authority's affidavit.

6. Supreme Court Decision:
The Supreme Court analyzed the situation and concluded that the failure to supply crucial documents within the specified time frame violated the detenu's right to effective representation, rendering the detention order illegal and bad.

7. Legal Precedents:
The Court referred to previous judgments emphasizing the detenu's right to receive all relevant documents promptly to ensure a meaningful opportunity for representation, highlighting that any delay in providing such documents could invalidate the detention.

8. Quashing of Detention Order:
Based on the non-compliance with the mandatory provisions and the detenu's right to receive essential documents in a timely manner, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, quashed the detention order, and directed the appellant's immediate release.

9. Conclusion:
The judgment underscores the importance of upholding the detenu's rights, including the timely provision of all relevant documents for effective representation, as mandated by constitutional provisions and legal precedents.

10. Final Decision:
The Supreme Court's ruling resulted in the quashing of the detention order due to the failure to provide vital documents promptly, reaffirming the detenu's fundamental right to a fair and informed opportunity to challenge the grounds of detention.