Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 43 (0.54 seconds)Section 9 in The Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 [Entire Act]
Ichhu Devi Choraria vs Union Of India & Ors on 9 September, 1980
In
S. Gurdip Singh v. Union of India, [1981] 1 SCC 419, follow-
ing Ichhu Devi Choraria v. Union of India, (supra) and Smt.
Shalini Soni v. Union of India, [1981] 1 SCR 962, it was
reiterated that if the documents which formed the basis of
the order of detention were not served on the detenu along
with the grounds of detention, in the eye of law there would
be no service of the grounds of detention and that circum-
stances would vitiate his detention and make it void ab
initio.
The Customs Act, 1962
Section 10 in The Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 [Entire Act]
Section 7 in The Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 [Entire Act]
Mohd. Zakir vs Delhi Administration And Ors. on 2 April, 1981
In Mohd. Zakir v. Delhi
Administration, [1982] 3 SCC 2 16 it was reiterated that it
being a Constitutional imperative for the detaining authori-
ty to give the documents relied on and referred to in the
order of detention pari passue the grounds of detention,
those should be furnished at the earliest so that the detenu
could make an effective representation immediately instead
of waiting for the documents to be supplied with. The ques-
tion of demanding the documents was wholly irrelevant and
the infirmity in that regard was violative of Constitutional
safeguards enshrined in Article 22(5).
Khudiram Das vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 26 November, 1974
In Khudiram Das v. State of West Bengal, [1975] 2 SCR
832, this Court held that where the liberty of the subject
is involved it is the bounden duty of the Court to satisfy
itself that all the safeguards provided by the law have been
scrupulously observed and that the subject is not deprived
of his personal liberty otherwise than in accordance with
law. The Constitutional requirement of Article 22(5) is that
all the basic facts and particulars which influenced the
detaining authority in arriving at the requisite satisfac-
tion leading to making the detention order must be communi-
cated to the detenu so that the detenu may have an opportu-
nity of making an effective representation against the order
of detention. "It is, therefore, not only the right of the
Court, but also its duty as well, to examine what are the
basic facts and materials which actually and in fact weighed
with the detaining authority in reaching the requisite
satisfaction. The judicial scrutiny cannot be foreclosed by
a mere statement of the detaining authority that it has
taken into account only certain basic facts and materials
and though other basic facts and materials were before it,
it has not allowed them to influence its satisfaction. The
Court is entitled to examine the correctness of this state-
ment and determine for itself whether there were any other
basic facts or materials, apart from those admitted by it,
which could have reasonably influenced the decision of the
detaining authority and for that purpose, the Court can
certainly require the detaining authority to produce and
make available to the Court the entire record of the case
which was before it. That is the least the Court can do to
ensure observance of the requirements of law by the detain-
ing authority."
Ramchandra A. Kamat vs Union Of India And Ors on 20 February, 1980
(3) Seizure of the detenu's passports was no doubt one
of the factors that the detaining authority should have
taken (and did in fact take) into account, but it was for
him to assess the weight to be attached to such a circum-
stance in arriving at his final decision and it is not open
to the Court to interfere with the merits of his decision.
[221E-F]
(4) From the records it appears that the bail applica-
tion and the bail order were furnished to the detaining
authority on his enquiry. It is difficult, therefore, to
accept the submission of the State Government that those
were not relied on by the detaining authority. [223A-B]
(5) The constitutional requirement of Article 22(5) is
that all the basic facts and particulars which influenced
the detaining authority in arriving at the requisite satis-
faction leading to making the detention order must be commu-
nicated to the detenu so that the detenu may have an oppor-
tunity of making an effective representation against the
order of detention. It is immaterial whether the detenu
already knew about their contents or not. [223E-F]
Ramchandra A. Kamat v. Union of India, [1980] 2 SCR
1072; Frances Coralia Muffin v. W.C. Khambra.
Union Of India & Ors vs Manoharlal Narang on 2 March, 1987
In
Union of India v. Manoharlal Narang, [1987] 2 SCC 241, the
Supreme Court's interim order in pending appeal against High
Court's quashing of a previous order of detention against
the same detenu was not considered by the detaining authori-
ty while making the impugned subsequent order against him.
By the interim order Supreme Court had permitted the detenu
to be at large on condition of his reporting to the police
station daily. It was held that non-consideration of the
interim order which constituted a relevant and important
material was fatal to the subsequent detention order on
ground of non-application of mind. If the detaining authori-
ty considered that order one could not state with definite-
ness which way his subjective satisfaction would have react-
ed and it could have persuaded the detaining authority to
desist from passing the order of detention. If in the in-
stant case the bail order on condition of the detenu's
reporting to the Customs authorities was not considered the
detention order itself would have been affected. Therefore,
it cannot be held that while passing the detention order the
bail order was not relied on by the detaining authority.