# INDERJEET AND ANR v. IUNION OF INDIA AND ORS

- **Citation:** [2008] 11 S.C.R. 1032
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2008-08-07
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 920-923 of 2001
- **Bench:** Dr. Arijit Pasayat, Dr. Mukundakam _, _ Sharma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/inderjeet-and-anr-v-iunion-of-india-and-ors-23522
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Preventive Detention:
,_
c
. Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of
..
Smuggling Activities Act, 197 4:
s. 3(1) - Detention order -
Upheld by High Court -
HELD: Besides the period of detention having been over, no
D case made out for interference.
~
The instant appeals were filed by the appellants
"-
against the order of the High Court dismissing their writ
r
'
petitions challenging the order of their detention u/s 3(1)
of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention
E of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 on the ground that the
Central Government did not dispose of their representaI
tions within a reasonable time when the second repre-
}
sentation was made.
F
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: Apart from the fact that the period of detention is over, the appellants have not made out any case
for interference. [para 6] [1035 E]
R. Keshava vs. M.B. Prakash and Ors. AIR 2001SC301
G - referred to.
Smt. Gracy vs. State of Kera/a and Anr. 44 (1991) Delhi
Law Times 1; and Jasbir Singh vs. Lt. Governor, Delhi and
Anr. (1999) 4 SCC 228 - held inapplicable ..
H
1032
INDERJEET & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
1033
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
Case Law Reference
44 (1991) Delhi Law Times 1 held inapplicable
para 1
(1999) 4 sec 228
held inapplicable para 1
AIR 2001 SC 301
referred to
para 5
A

## Text

[2008] 11S.C.R.1032
'(
A
INDERJEET AND ANR.
V.
IUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
t '
(Criminal Appeal No. 920-923 of 2001)
B
AUGUST 7, 2008
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
_,_
SHARMA, JJ]
Preventive Detention:
,_
c
. Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of
..
Smuggling Activities Act, 197 4:
s. 3(1) - Detention order -
Upheld by High Court -
HELD: Besides the period of detention having been over, no
D case made out for interference.
~
The instant appeals were filed by the appellants
"-
against the order of the High Court dismissing their writ
r
'
petitions challenging the order of their detention u/s 3(1)
of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention
E of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 on the ground that the
Central Government did not dispose of their representaI
tions within a reasonable time when the second repre-
}
sentation was made.
F
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: Apart from the fact that the period of detention is over, the appellants have not made out any case
for interference. [para 6] [1035 E]
R. Keshava vs. M.B. Prakash and Ors. AIR 2001SC301
G - referred to.
Smt. Gracy vs. State of Kera/a and Anr. 44 (1991) Delhi
Law Times 1; and Jasbir Singh vs. Lt. Governor, Delhi and
Anr. (1999) 4 SCC 228 - held inapplicable ..
H
1032
INDERJEET & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
1033
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
Case Law Reference
44 (1991) Delhi Law Times 1 held inapplicable
para 1
(1999) 4 sec 228
held inapplicable para 1
AIR 2001 SC 301
referred to
para 5
A
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
B
Nos. 920-923 of 2001
From the final Judgment and Order dated 18.12.2000 and
20.12.2000 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal
Writ Petition Nos. 477 and 479 of 2000 and Review Applica- c
tions bearing Crl. Misc. Nos. 1989 and 1988 of 2000 respectively.
Roh it Minocha for the Appellants.
Ashok Bhan, Sanjeev K. Bhardwaj, B. Krishna Prasad and
D
Satish Vig for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. In the present appeals, challenge is to the order of detention passed under Section 3(1) of E
the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
The said order was passed on the ground that gold was being
smuggled from abroad by the lnderjeet Singh, the appellant No.1.
He and the other appellant - Varinder Singh were intercepted
on 17 .12.1999 in the Customs Arrival Hall at Netaji Subhash
F
Chandra Bose International Airport, Calcutta. They were found
smuggling 77 pieces of gold bars of foreign origin weighing
about 8.816 Kg. and valued at about Rs.39 Lacs. A representation was made to the detaining authorities to revoke the
detention. Representation was also made to the Advisory G
Board and to the Central Government. The representations were considered and rejected. Writ petitions were filed
before the Delhi High Court which were numbered as Criminal
Writ Petition Nos.477of2000 and 479of2000. The main ground
of challenge was that the Central Government did not dispose
H
1034
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 11 S.C.R.
A of the representations within a reasonable time when the second representation was made. Strong reliance was placed before the High Court on a decision of this Court in Smt. Gracy
Vs. State of Kera/a and Anr. (44 (1991) Delhi Law Times - 1.
The High Court found that the decision had no application and
B also the decision of this Court in Jasbir Singh Vs. Lt. Governor,
Delhi and Anr. (1999 (4) SCC 228) had no application. Therefore, the writ petitions were dismissed. Subsequently, an application for review of the order dated 18.12.2000 was filed which
was also dismissed.
C
2. Challenge in these appeals is to the aforesaid orders
of the High Court.
3. None appears for the appellants.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the Union of India
D and respondent No.3 - the Superintendent of the Central Jail.
E
F
G
H
5. At this juncture, it would be relevant to note that the ratio
in Smt. Gracy's case (Supra) was analysed by this Court in R.
Keshava Vs. M.B. Prakash and Ors. (AIR 2001 SC 301 ). It
was inter-alia obseNed as follows:
"A perusal of the aforesaid Section and other relevant
provisions of the Act makes it abundantly clear that no
duty is cast upon the Advisory Board to furnish the whole
of the record and the representation addressed to it only
to the Government along with its report prepared under
Section 8(c) of the Act.
It may be appropriate for the
Board to transmit the whole record along with the report,
if deemed expedient but omission to send such record or
report would not render the detention illegal or cast an
obligation upon the appropriate government to make
inquiries for finding out as to whether the detenu has
made any representation, to any person or authority,
against his detention or not. We are of the opinion that
in Gracy's case (supra) it was not held that any such duty
was cast upon the Board but even if the obseNations are
--
1
"·
...
I
'
~ ,.
INDERJEET & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
1035
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
stretched to that extent, we feel that those 'observations A
were uncalled for in view of the scheme of the Act and the
mandate of the Constitution.
In Nand Lal Bajaj v. State of Punjab & Anr. [1981 (4) SCC
327] this Court made the following observations: "The
matter can be viewed from another angle. We were B
informed that the Advisory Board did not forward the record
of its proceedings to the State Government. If that be so,
then the procedure adopted was not in consonance with
the procedure established by law. The State Government
while confirming the detention order under Section 12 of C
the Act has not only to peruse the report of the Advisory
Board, but also to apply its mind to the material on record.
If the record itself was not before the State Government,
it follows that the order passed by the State Government
under Section 12 of the Act was without due application D
of mind. This is a serious infirmity in the case which
makes the continued detention of the detenu illegal."
6. Apart from the fact that the period of detention is over,
we also find that on merit, the appellants have not made out any
case for interference. The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.
E
R.P.
Appeals dismissed.