9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Validity of the order of detention under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. 2. Deprivation of the detenu's opportunity to make effective representation against the order of detention. Detailed Analysis: 1. The High Court of Bombay heard a case involving the validity of an order of detention issued by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. The order was based on the detenu's unauthorized acquisition of foreign exchange in India and subsequent transfer of the same out of the country, which was deemed prejudicial to the augmentation of the country's foreign exchange resources. The detenu was found in possession of foreign currency while leaving the country, and it was revealed that he had made multiple visits to Singapore in the year 1987, carrying foreign currency each time. The detaining authority concluded that the detenu's actions violated the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, justifying the detention to prevent further activities detrimental to foreign exchange resources. 2. The detenu's legal counsel argued that the order of detention should be set aside as the detenu was not provided with a clear and legible copy of his passport, which was crucial for him to make an effective representation against the order. The detenu claimed that the xerox copy of the passport provided to him along with the grounds of detention was illegible and contained blank pages, making it difficult to verify the detaining authority's claims regarding the detenu's travel history to Singapore. The Detaining Authority contended that the copies supplied to the detenu were not illegible, but upon examination, it was evident that several entries were indeed blank or illegible, hindering the detenu's ability to challenge the conclusions drawn by the authority. The court rejected the Detaining Authority's reliance on a previous decision that involved different circumstances, emphasizing that in this case, the detenu disputed the number of visits to Singapore as recorded by the authority, indicating a denial of the detenu's right to make an effective representation due to the illegibility of the documents provided. In conclusion, the High Court ruled in favor of the detenu, holding that the order of detention was not sustainable due to the detenu being deprived of the opportunity to effectively challenge the grounds of detention. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned order of detention and directed the detenu's immediate release, with no costs imposed.
|
