Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
STATE OF U.P.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
SHAKEEL AHMED
DATE OF JUDGMENT28/11/1995
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
MAJMUDAR S.B. (J)
CITATION:
1996 SCC (1) 337 JT 1995 (8) 561
1995 SCALE (6)732
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Though the respondent has been served, he does not
appear either in person or through counsel. Notice is
sufficient.
Leave granted.
The respondent was detained on July 31, 1989 under
Section 3 [1] (iii) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange
and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act. When he
challenged the order of detention, the High Court in the
impugned order dated July 25, 1990 made in W.P. No.2029 of
1990 set aside the order of detention on the ground that the
delay in non-consideration of the representation for one
month, i.e., from February 20, 1990 to March 15, 1990, was
not explained and also on the ground that copy of the report
of the sponsoring authority had not been supplied to the
detenu which violates Article 22 [5] of the Constitution. We
are of the opinion that the High Court was not right in
setting aside the order of detention on these grounds. It is
not mandatory that the report of the sponsoring authority
should be supplied to the detenu under Article 22 [5] of the
Constitution. It is only a material furnished to the
detaining authority. All the material on which reliance was
place for order of detention was admittedly supplied to the
detenu. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the
delay in disposal of the representation of about 23 days
also is not fatal.
Under these circumstances, the order of the High Court
setting aside the detention order is clearly illegal.
However, since the period has already expired, we do not
think that it is a case warranting further detention of the
respondent.
The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2