Case Summary : ASHOK KUMAR VS UNION OF INDIA & ORS

Author : Akash Krishnan

Citation: 1988 SCR (2) 800, 1988 SCC (1) 541

Bench: Ray, B.C. (J)

INTRODUCTION

Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 talks about Detention orders. Detention orders are orders upon which people involved in the process of smuggling or dealing with smuggled goods or any person who harbours a person involved in smuggling od goods can be detained by the order of an A Central Govt or State Govt officer not below the rank of Joint Secretary. Any such order made by a person empowered by the State Govt, the same is informed to the Central Govt within 10 days.

The grounds of detention are to be informed to him within 5 or in exceptional circumstances, no later than 15 days. This provision is the crux of the following case.

FACTS

The Appellant was detained in pursuance of a detention order made under Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. The grounds of detention were informed thereafter. The grounds stated that he was involved in the smuggling of foreign currency and foreign gold in large sums.

Challenge the same he made two representations before the Central Govt and the Detaining Authority stating that the premises where these particulars were found did not belong to him but belonged to his sister-in-law. He further asked for evidence as to why the matter was directly associated to him. The same was provided wo him with the delay of a month and by the time he could form a representation, an order of detention for 1 year was passed against him by the Detaining Authority. He filed the case because he did not get a chance of equal and effective representation as the grounds for detention were communicated late and there was inordinate delay in the communication made. Further he challenged that the tenure of 1 year fixed had no reasonable grounds.

ISSUE

Whether the Detention order made is valid?

JUDGEMENT

The court held that not all information was supplied to the Appellant on time. Though the Grounds were provided in 5 days, the significance of those grounds, though available with the Authority was not supplied to the Appellant on time. Due to this he couldn’t make an effective representation.

Thus, the order violates Article 22(5) of the constitution and thus it is to be quashed.