1990 (3) TMI 161 - SC - Customs

Whether the High Court is justified in setting aside the Detention order? Held that - The object and purpose of the observation, seem to be that the family members of the detenu should not be kept in darkness by withholding the information about the passing of the order of detention and the place of detention thereby preventing them from having any access and from rendering any help or assistance to the detenu and similarly the detenu should not be deprived of the privilege of meeting their relations and getting any help or assistance. Coming to the present case, we are satisfied that the family members had sufficient knowledge about the detention of the detenu by virtue of the mittimus issued as well the place of detention. Therefore, no legitimate grievance can be made that there is a contravention to the observation in A.K. Roy s case 1981 (12) TMI 159 - SUPREME COURT.

Issues:
1. Validity of detention order under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974.
2. Compliance with the requirement of informing detenu's relatives about the detention order and place of detention.
3. Interpretation of the observation in A.K. Roy v. Union of India regarding informing family members of the detenu.
4. Justification of setting aside the detention order by the High Court based on non-compliance with A.K. Roy's case.
5. Decision to remit the matter to the High Court of Gujarat for further consideration.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The Supreme Court heard a criminal appeal filed by the Union of India and the Additional Secretary to the Government of India challenging the High Court of Gujarat's decision to quash the detention order dated 19-6-1987 against the first respondent under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. The High Court held that the detenu's relatives were not informed about the detention order or the place of detention, which was deemed non-compliance based on the A.K. Roy v. Union of India case. Consequently, the High Court quashed the detention order, directing the detenu's release.

2. The Additional Solicitor General contested the High Court's finding, arguing that the detenu was already an undertrial prisoner, and his relatives, including his maternal uncle, had visited him in jail shortly after the detention. The appellants maintained that the detenu's relatives were aware of his detention status, rendering the written intimation requirement insignificant. The Supreme Court noted the absence of a counter from the detenu regarding this argument.

3. The Supreme Court examined the observation in A.K. Roy's case, emphasizing the importance of informing the detenu's family members about the detention order and place of detention to uphold fairness and reasonableness in detention procedures. The purpose was to ensure that family members are not kept uninformed and that the detenu can access assistance and support from relatives.

4. Upon reviewing the facts of the case, the Supreme Court found that the detenu's family members had adequate knowledge of his detention and place of confinement through the mittimus issued. Consequently, the Court concluded that there was no violation of the principle outlined in A.K. Roy's case. The High Court's decision to set aside the detention order based on non-compliance was overturned, and the matter was remitted back to the High Court of Gujarat for further consideration of other challenges raised by the detenu.

5. In light of the detenu's release following the High Court's judgment, the Supreme Court ordered that the detenu should not be taken into custody again until the matter is finally resolved by the High Court. The criminal appeal was disposed of accordingly, with the Supreme Court setting aside the High Court's judgment and directing a reevaluation of the case by the High Court of Gujarat.

← Previous Next →