PETITIONER:
SATAR HABIB HAMDANI ETC
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
K.S. DILIPSINHJI & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT20/12/1985
BENCH:
REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)
BENCH:
REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)
KHALID, V. (J)
CITATION:
1986 AIR 418 1986 SCC (1) 544
1985 SCALE (2)1429
CITATOR INFO :
RF 1991 SC 672 (20)
ACT:
Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of
Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. Section 9 – ‘Detention’ and
‘continued detention’ – Difference between – Advisory board
- Duty of Specifically consider and determine whether there
is sufficient cause for ‘continued detention’ of the person
concerned.
HEADNOTE:
An order of detention under the COFEPOSA was made by
the Additional Secretary to the Government of India against
the appellant, and the grounds of detention were served on
him on July 1, 1984. On July 13, 1984 the COFEPOSA was
amended. Purporting to act under section 9(1) of the
COFEPOSA as amended the Additional Secretary made a
declaration that he was satisfied that the appellant was
likely to abet the smuggling of goods into and through an
area highly vulnerable to smuggling as defined in
Explanation 1 to section 9(1) of the Act. Thereafter the
usual reference to the Advisory Board was made and after
obtaining its opinion the Government of India by an order
dated December 22, 1984 confirmed the detention for a period
of two years.
In the appeals to this Court, it was contended on
behalf of the appellants that in every case where it was
proposed to have recourse to s. 10 read with s. 9 it was
necessary for the Advisory Board to state its opinion, that
‘the continued detention of the detenu was necessary and
that in a case where the Advisory Board merely opined that
‘the detention’ of the detenu was necessary, recourse could
not be had to s. 10 read with s. 9 so as to enable the
detenu to be detained for two years. This contention was
answered on behalf of the respondents through the counter
affidavit by contending, that once the Advisory Board gives
an opinion affirming the detention it must be regarded as an
opinion in regard to both the aspects viz. the original
‘detention’ and the ‘continued detention’.
Allowing the Appeals,
^
HELD: 1. In the absence of the Advisory Board’s opinion
to the effect that there is sufficient cause for the
‘continued
1062
detention’ of the detenus, their detention for a period
exceeding one year is without legal sanction. More than one
year has lapsed since the appellants have been detained.
They are directed to be set at liberty forthwith. [1068 G]
2. The scheme of section 3,8,9 and 10 of the Act
appears to be that while generally the period for which a
person may be preventively detained under the COFEPOSA in
connection with the smuggling activities may not exceed a
period of one year, in case of certain kinds of activities
of smuggling into, out of, or through ‘any area highly
vulnerable to smuggling’, the period may extend upto two
years. In the latter event, a declaration is required to be
made within five weeks of the detention of such person in
the manner provided by section 9(1) of the Act. [1067G; 1068
A]
3. In a case to which s.9 applies, s.8 stands suitably
amended, a reference is required to be made within four
months and two weeks by the Government to the Advisory
Board, and the Advisory Board is required to state its
opinion within five months and three weeks from the order of
detention where there is sufficient cause for the ‘continued
detention’ of the person concerned. [1068 B]
4. The two safeguards provided to the detenu against
‘continued detention’ are the application of mind by the
specified authority before making a declaration under s.9(1)
and the consideration of the question by the Advisory Board.
[1068 C]
5. The Advisory Board is to state its opinion not
merely whether detention is necessary, but whether
‘continued detention’ is necessary. The Advisory Board will
necessarily have to go behind the declaration under s.9 to
consider the question whether there is sufficient cause for
‘continued detention’. [1068 C]
6. In a case to which s.9 applies it is important that
the Advisory Board specifically considers and answers the
question whether in its opinion there is sufficient cause
for the ‘continued detention’ of the person concerned. If
the Advisory Board merely states that the detention of the
person is necessary it is not for anyone else to supplement
the Advisory Board’s opinion and substitute the words
‘continued detention’ for the word ‘detention’. [1068 E]
JUDGMENT:
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.
371 of 1985 etc.
1063
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.12.1984 of the
Gujarat High Court in Special Criminal Application No. 494
of 1984.
M.G. Karmali, U.R. Lalit, Vineet Kumar and N.D.B. Raju
for the Appellants.
V.C. Mahajan, R.N. Poddar, Miss Sushma Rahlan and
Girish Chandra for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. These several Criminal Appeals
raise a common question and may be disposed of by a single
judgment. It is sufficient if we state that the facts in one
case : Criminal Appeal No. 371 of 1985. On 29.6.84 an order
of detention under the COFEPOSA was made by the Additional
Secretary to the Government of India, Finance Department
against Satar Habib Hamdani. The grounds of detention were
served on him on July 1, 1984. On July 13, 1984 the COEEPOSA
was amended by an Ordinance which was replaced by an
Amending Act. We will presently refer to the provisions of
the Act. Purporting to act under s.9(1) of the COFEPOSA as
amended, the Additional Secretary to the Government of India
made a declaration that he was satisfied that ‘Shri Satar
Habib Hamdani abets and is likely to abet the smuggling of
goods into and through Porbandar which is an area highly
vulnerable to smuggling, as defined in Explanation 1 to
section 9(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and
Prevention of smuggling Activities Act, 1974.’ Thereafter
the usual reference to the Advisory Board was made and after
obtaining the opinion of the Advisory Board, the Government
of India, by an order dated December 22, 1984 confirmed the
detention of Satar Habib Hamdani for a period of two years.
The order was as follows :
“WHEREAS an order F.No.673/75/84-Cus. VIII dated
28/29 June, 1984 has been passed by the Additional
Secretary to the Government of India u/s 3(1) of
the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and
Prevention of Smuggling Act, 1974 for the
detention of Shri Satar Habib Hamdani whereas a
declaration u/s 9(1) ibid has been made against
him by the Additional Secretary to the Government
of India :
ANL WHEREAS the case of Shri ……. was placed
before the Advisory Board who are of the opinion
that there is sufficient cause for his detention ;
1064
NOW, THEREFORE, in exercise of the powers
conferred by section 8(f) read with section 9(2)
of the aforesaid Act, the Central Government here
- by confirms the aforesaid detention order and
Satar Habib Hamdani u/s 10 of the said Act, the
said Shri …….. be detained for a period 1-7-
1984 two years from the date of his detention i.e.
from
Sd/-
(A.N. AGNIHOTRI)
UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Shri Satar Habib Hamdani,
Central COFEPOSA Detenu,
C/o Supdt. District Prison Rajkot.”
The submission of Shri Karmali learned counsel for the
appellants who presented the case neatly and with precision
was that in every case where it was proposed to have
recourse to s.10 read with s.9 it was necessary for the
Advisory Board to state its opinion that ‘the continued
detention’ of the detenu was necessary and that in a case
where the Advisory Board merely opined that ‘the detention’
of the detenu was necessary, recourse could not be had to
s.10 read with s.9 so as to enable the detenu to be detained
for two years. The answer to the claim of the appellant was
stated in the counter affidavit as follows:
“With reference to para 10(xv) I submit that it is
not incumbent upon the Advisory Board to send its
report to the effect that there is sufficient
cause for continued detention once having observed
and reported that there was sufficient cause for
detention. Once the Advisory Board gives an
opinion affirming the detention it must be
regarded as an opinion in regard to both the
aspects viz. the original detention and the
continued detention i.e. right from the date of
arrest till the date of giving opinion deny that
the continued detention of the appellant is
violative of sec.8(c) of the Act.
In order to appreciate the submission of Shri Karmali
we may refer to the relevant provisions of the COFEPOSA as
amended by the Amending Act of 1984. Section 3(1) empowers
the authority specified therein -
1065
“If satisfied, with respect to any person
(including a foreigner), that, with a view to
preventing him from acting in any manner
prejudicial to the conservation or augmentation of
foreign exchange or with a view to preventing him
from -
(i) smuggling goods, or
(ii) abetting the smuggling of goods, or
(iii) engaging in transporting or concealing or
keeping smuggled goods, or
(iv) dealing in smuggled goods otherwise than by
engaging in transporting or concealing or keeping
smuggled goods, or
(v) harbouring persons engaged in smuggling goods
or in abetting the smuggling of goods,
It is necessary so to do, make an order directing
that such person be detained.”
Section 8 provides for the Constitution of Advisory
Boards, prescribes their function and specifies their
procedure. For the purposes of the present case we are
concerned with clauses (b).(c) and (f) which are as follows
:-
“8. Advisory Boards:- For the purposes of sub-
clause (a) of clause (4), and sub-clause (c) of
clause (7), of Article 22 of the Constitution, -
(a)……………………………………….
(b) save as otherwise provided in Section 9, the
appropriate Government shall, within five weeks
from the date of detention of a person under a
detention order make a reference in respect
thereof to the Advisory Board constituted under
clause (a) to enable the Advisory Board to make
the report under sub-clause (a) of clause (4) of
Article 22 of the Constitution;
(c) the Advisory Board to which a reference is
made under clause (b) shall after considering the
reference and the materials placed before it and
after calling for such further information as it
may deem necessary
1066
from the appropriate Government or from any person
called for the purpose through the appropriate
Government or from the person concerned, and if in
any particular case, to considers it essential so
to do or if the person concerned desires to be
heard in person, after hearing him in person,
prepare its report specifying in a separate
paragraph thereof its opinion as to whether or not
there is sufficient cause for the detention of the
person concerned and submit the same within eleven
weeks from the date of detention of the person
concerned;
(d)……………………………….
(e)………………………………..
(f) in every case where the Advisory Board has
reported that there is in its opinion sufficient
cause for the detention of a person, the
appropriate Government may confirm the detention
order and continue the detention of the person
concerned for such period as it thinks fit and in
every case where the Advisory Board has reported
that there is in its opinion no sufficient cause
for the detention of the person concerned, the
appropriate Government shall revoke the detention
order and cause the person to be released
forthwith.”
Section 9(1) empowers the authority specified therein to
make a declaration that the person against whom an order of
detention has been made
(a) smuggles or is likely to smuggle goods into,
out of or through any area highly vulnerable to
smuggling; or
(b) abets or is likely to abet the smuggling of
goods into, out of or through any area highly
vulnerable to smuggling; or
(c) engages or is likely to engage in transporting
or concealing or keeping smuggled goods in any
area highly vulnerable to smuggling,
Whereupon such person may be detained without obtaining the
opinion of an Advisory Board for a period longer than three
1067
Months but not exceeding six months from the date of his
detention. Explanation 1 to S.9(1) defines ‘area highly
vulnerable to smuggling’.
Section 9(2) is important and it is as follows :-
“(2) In the case of any person detained under a
detention order to which the provisions of sub-
section (1) apply, Section 8 shall have effect
subject to the following modifications, namely:-
(i) in clause (b), for the words shall, within
five weeks, the wrods “shall, within four months
and two weeks” shall be substituted:
(ii) in clause (c), -
(1) for the words the detention of the person
concerned , the words the continued detention of
the person concerned shall be substituted;
(2) for the words eleven weeks the words five
months and three weeks shall be substituted;
(iii) in clause (f), for the words for the
detention , at both the places where they occur,
the words “for the continued detention” shall be
substituted.
Section 10 stipulates the maximum period for which any
person may be detained pursuant to an order of detention to
which the provisions of section 9 do not apply and which has
been confirmed under s.8(f) as one year from the date of
detention or the specified period; and, the maximum period
for which any person may be detained pursuant to an order of
detention to which the provisions of s.9 apply and which has
been confirmed under s.8(f) read with s.9(2) as two years
from the date of detention, or the specified period. As we
see, the scheme of section 3, 8, 9 and 10 appears to be that
while generally the period for which a person may be
preventively detained under the COFEPOSA in connection with
smuggling activites, may not exceed a period of one year, in
case of certain kinds of activities of smuggling into, out
of or through ‘any area highly vulnerable to smuggling’, the
period may extend upto two years. In the latter event a
declaration is required to be made within five weeks of
1068
the detention of such person in the manner provided by
s.9(1) of the Act. That is not enough. In a case to which
s.9 applies, s.8 stands suitably amended, a reference is
required to be made within four months and two weeks by the
Government to the Advisory Board and the Advisory Board is
required to state its opinion within five months and three
weeks from the order of detention whether there is
sufficient cause for the continued detention’ of the person
concerned. In other words, the Advisory Board is to state
its opinion not merely whether detention is necessary but
whether ‘continued detention’ is necessary. The Advisory
Board will necessarily have to go behind the declaration
under s.9(1) to consider the question whether there is
sufficient cause for ‘continued detention’. The two
safeguards provided to the detenu against ‘continued
detention’, at that stage, are the application of mind by
the specified authority before making a declaration under
s.9(1) and the consideration of the question by the Advisory
Board. Section 8 is enacted and professedly enacted for the
purpose of Art.22, clause (4), sub-clause (a) and Art.22,
clause(7), sub-clause(c) and s.9 expressly refers to Art.22,
clause (4), sub-clause(a). That is why in a case to which
s.9 applies it is important that the Advisory Board
specifically considers and answers the question whether in
its opinion there is sufficient cause for the ‘continued
detention’ of the person concerned. If the Advisory Board
merely states that the detention of the person is necessary
it is not for any one else to supplement the Advisory
Board’s opinion and subsitute the words continued detention
for the word detention . The matter is of vital important
for that. The omission of the words continued detention in
the opinion of the Advisory Board cannot be slurred over in
the fashion we are invited to do in the counter affidavit.
Nor can we treat the omission as a mere clerical or
typographical error when that is not the express case of the
respondents. We are of the opinion that in the absence of
the Advisory Board’s opinion to the effect that there is
sufficient cause to the ‘continued detention’ of the
detenus, their detention for period exceeding one year is
without legal sanction. It already much more than one year
since the appellants have been detained. They are directed
to be set at liberty forthwith.
N.V.K. Appeals allowe
1069