Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.21 seconds)The Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974
Kirit Kumar Chaman Lal Kundaliya vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 30 January, 1981
Assuming that the relevant entries could be seen and read with the help of the magnifying glass, still in the affidavit filed by the Secretary, Home Department, he has not disputed that the other parts of these documents are wholly illegible. He has also not disputed that these documents were relied upon while passing the detention order. It cannot be disputed that supplying of the copies of relevant documents, which are also relied upon for the purpose of detention is not an empty formality. As observed by the Supreme Court in Kirit Kumar's case, 1981 Cri LJ 1267 (SC) this Court is not competent to determine the question of relevance of the documents nor it is open to this Court to go through confidential files of the Government in order to fish out a point against the detenu. While dealing with such a contention the Supreme Court observed (at pp. 1270-1271 of Cri LJ) :
Mst. L.M.S. Ummu Saleema vs B.B. Gujaral & Anr on 4 May, 1981
8. In the present case, therefore, it will have to be held that the documents which were wholly illegible were not supplied at all to the detenu for all practical purposes. It is not disputed before us that all these documents were considered by the detaining authority and with the exception of one, were also relied upon for the purpose of detention. When a document is referred to in the grounds of detention, how can the Court say that only a particular entry is relied upon ? That will amount to fishing out a point against the detenu. This is more so, when in the grounds of detention or in the statements of witnesses, no reference is made to a particular entry. Further this is not a case in which it could be said that to these documents a mere casual reference was made and they were not relied upon by the detaining authority while passing the detention order. To such a case observations of Supreme Court in L. M. S. Ummu Saleema v. B.B. Gujarat cannot apply. Therefore, the only question which requires further consideration in this case is to find out as to what is the effect of the non-supply of relevant documents, which were relied upon by the detaining authority for passing the detention order. It is not possible for us to accept the contention of Mr. Kotwal that if the relevant entries are legible, then there is no denial of right of making an effective representation. It cannot be forgotten that the detenu is an old man aged about 70 years. The documents and grounds of detention were served upon him when he was in jail custody. Therefore, he had no assistance or help, nor a magnifying glass was available to him. In the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act no reference is made to the particular or specific entry nor such a specific reference is made in the grounds of detention. Reference is made to the documents only which will mean that document as a whole is referred to and relied upon. Therefore, even for deciding as to which is the relevant entry, the perusal and reading of the whole document was absolutely necessary. Such a perusal or reading was not possible because admittedly the remaining portion of the document was not legible. As already observed, supplying the copies of relevant documents is not an empty formality and the detaining authority cannot be permitted to take advantage of its own wrong and to indulge in this type of argument. These documents were relied upon by the detaining authority while passing the detention order and in spite of this due care and precaution was not taken to supply legible copies of the documents to the detenue. Therefore, for all practical purposes it will have to be held that copies of these documents were not supplied to detenu at all.
Kamla Kanahiyalal Khushalani vs State Of Mahararashtra And Anr on 6 January, 1981
In Kamla Kanhaiyalal Khushalani v. State of Maharashtra the Supreme Court held that the documents and materials relied upon in the order of detention form an integral part of the grounds and must be supplied to the detenu pari passu the grounds of detention. If the documents and materials are supplied later, then the detenu is deprived of an opportunity of making an effective representation against the order of detention. Thus before an order of detention can be supported, the Constitutional safeguard must be strictly observed. Thus it is clear that supplying the relevant documents to enable the detenu to make an effective representation is a constitutional safeguard. Art 22(5) of the Constitution of India lays down that when any person is detained in pursuance of an order made under any law providing for preventive detention, the authority making the order shall, as soon as may be, communicate to such person the grounds on which the order has been made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order. The communication of the grounds is part and parcel of the constitutional safeguard guaranteed under Art 22(5) of the Constn. As observed by the Supreme Court in various decisions the documents which form an integral part of the grounds must be supplied along with the grounds of detention. If this is not done, the detention of the detenu is liable to be declared as void.
Satyanarayan Kothari vs The Superintendent, Presidency Jail ... on 16 February, 1981
Satyanarayan Kothari v. Supdt., Presidency Jail, Alipore and the decision of this Court in Criminal Application No. 419 of 1978 decided on 19th September, 1978 by Naik and Mehta JJ., on which reliance is placed by Mr. Kotwal.
Section 3 in The Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 [Entire Act]
Harish Pahwa vs State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors on 18 March, 1981
In support of this contention the learned counsel has placed reliance upon the various decisions of the Supreme Court including the decisions in Harish Pahwa v. State of U.P. and in Smt. Khatton Begum v. Union of India . Mr. Canteenwala also contended that the mass of the records furnished by the detaining authority contains innumerable pages which are not even legible or readable. He has drawn our attention to the averments made in the petition wherein the details of these documents are given. He also contended that from the affidavit filed by the detaining authority it is clear that these documents were considered and relied upon for the purpose of detention. According to the learned counsel, supplying illegible documents amounts to non-supply of documents and, therefore, the order of detention is wholly void.
Section 108 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Smt. Khatoon Begum Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Ors. Etc. Etc on 9 March, 1981
In support of this contention the learned counsel has placed reliance upon the various decisions of the Supreme Court including the decisions in Harish Pahwa v. State of U.P. and in Smt. Khatton Begum v. Union of India . Mr. Canteenwala also contended that the mass of the records furnished by the detaining authority contains innumerable pages which are not even legible or readable. He has drawn our attention to the averments made in the petition wherein the details of these documents are given. He also contended that from the affidavit filed by the detaining authority it is clear that these documents were considered and relied upon for the purpose of detention. According to the learned counsel, supplying illegible documents amounts to non-supply of documents and, therefore, the order of detention is wholly void.
1