9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (4) TMI 883 - SUPREME COURTExtract: .......sal of the representation of the detenu by the State Government, the continued detention of the detenu is rendered illegal. We, therefore, direct that the detenu - Abdul Nasar Adam Ismail be released from detention forthwith if he is not already released from detention and he is not required in any other case. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the detention order dated 16/4/2012. 2. Delay in considering the detenu's representation by the State Government. 3. Independent consideration of the detenu's representation by the detaining authority. Summary: Legality of the Detention Order: The appellant challenged the detention order dated 16/4/2012 issued u/s 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, aimed at preventing future smuggling activities. The detenu was found carrying concealed gold upon arrival from Dubai, leading to the detention order. Delay in Considering the Representation: The appellant argued that the delay in considering his representation violated his right u/s Article 22(5) of the Constitution. The representation dated 23/6/2012 was rejected on 24/7/2012, indicating a delay. The Court emphasized that any unexplained delay in considering the representation would render the continued detention illegal. The State Government's explanation for the delay was found reasonable, except for the unexplained delay by the jail authority in forwarding the representation. Independent Consideration of the Representation: The appellant contended that the detaining authority did not consider the representation independently. This point was not raised in the petition or before the High Court. The Court noted that the detaining authority processed the representation through the concerned officials and rejected it within four days. The procedure followed was deemed appropriate, and the submission regarding lack of independent consideration was rejected. Conclusion: The Court held that the detention order dated 16/4/2012 is valid. However, due to the unexplained delay by the jail authority in forwarding the representation, the continued detention of the detenu is rendered illegal. The Court directed the immediate release of the detenu if not already released and not required in any other case. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
|
