9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to the validity of detention order under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act based on various grounds. Violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India by the detaining authority in not supplying relevant documents to the detenu within the statutory period. Analysis: The judgment pertains to a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the detention order made by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act. The detenu, an illiterate sixty-eight-year-old lady, was alleged to be involved in activities prejudicial to foreign exchange augmentation. The detention order was issued following the seizure of foreign goods and documents from the detenu's son's premises, implicating her in smuggling activities. The detenu's involvement was based on statements from her son's brother-in-law and daughter-in-law, indicating her role in selling gold biscuits and making payments as per her son's instructions. The detenu made representations challenging the detention order, citing the non-supply of relevant documents within the statutory period. The detaining authority rejected her representations, leading to the petition before the High Court. The court scrutinized the statements of witnesses and documents relied upon by the detaining authority. It was observed that crucial documents implicating the detenu were not placed before the authority, raising doubts about the sufficiency of material considered in arriving at the detention order. The court emphasized the importance of considering all relevant evidence before depriving an individual of liberty through detention. The court highlighted discrepancies in the detaining authority's satisfaction regarding the detenu's involvement in smuggling activities. It noted that the detenu's illiteracy, age, and circumstances made it unreasonable to attribute knowledge or active participation in the alleged activities. The court questioned the reliance on letters addressed to the detenu, emphasizing that mere receipt of letters did not establish her complicity. Ultimately, the court concluded that the detention order lacked a reasonable basis and was marred by non-application of mind, leading to the quashing of the order and the immediate release of the detenu. In conclusion, the judgment underscores the importance of a thorough and reasoned assessment before depriving an individual of liberty through preventive detention. It highlights the need for a strong evidentiary basis and proper consideration of all relevant material to justify such drastic measures under preventive detention laws.
|
