Holding

A preventive detention order under COFEPOSA is valid even if the detainee is already in custody, provided the detaining authority is aware of the prior custody and the grounds of detention disclose compelling reasons, and the procedural requirements of the Advisory Board and Government confirmation are satisfied.

Summary

The appellant Vijay Kumar was detained under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA) after the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence seized smuggled gold biscuits linked to him. He was already in custody on a charge under section 135 of the Customs Act when the detaining authority issued a provisional order of detention on April 1, 1987, which was later confirmed by the Central Government for the maximum period of one year. The appellant challenged the order on several grounds, including that the detaining authority was unaware of his existing custody, that no compelling reasons justified a preventive detention while he was already detained, that the Advisory Board violated natural justice by not allowing him to examine witnesses or have assistance, and that the Government failed to apply its mind in imposing the maximum period. The Supreme Court held that the detaining authority was indeed aware of the appellant's prior custody, that the grounds of detention disclosed sufficient compelling reasons, and that the procedural requirements of the Advisory Board and the Government’s confirmation were satisfied. Consequently, the Court affirmed the High Court’s dismissal of the writ petition and dismissed the appeal.

Issues considered

The detaining authority must be aware of the fact that the person is already in custody before issuing a preventive detention order under COFEPOSA.
Whether compelling reasons for preventive detention must be disclosed in the grounds of detention when the detainee is already under criminal custody.
Whether the Advisory Board violated principles of natural justice by not permitting the appellant to examine witnesses or have assistance of a friend.
Whether the delay in considering representations filed by the appellant and his wife rendered the detention order illegal.
Whether the Government must give specific reasons when confirming a detention for the maximum period prescribed under section 10 of COFEPOSA.

Legislation cited

Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974s. 10, s. 11, s. 3(1), s. 8(f)
Customs Act, 1962s. 135

Subjects

preventive detentionCOFEPOSAnatural justiceadvisory boarddetention while in custodyforeign exchange smugglingrepresentation delaymaximum detention period

Judgment

VIJAY KUMAR
'(
A
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

FEBRUARY 24, 1988

B [MURARI MOHON DUIT AND
K. JAGANNATHA SHEITY, JJ.] ~\

-r
Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling
Activities Act, 1974--Chal/enging detention under.

This appeal was directed against the judgment of the High Court
c whereby the High Court had dismissed the writ petition of the appel- '
lant, ·challenging the validity of his detention under the Conservation.of --+
Foreign Exchange & Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974
('The Act').

D The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) had information
that the appellant was engaged in receipt; storage and disposal of smug-
gled goods on a large scale. On· a specific information received on
March 11, 1987, that large quantity of gold had been received hy the
appellant and stored at his instance in various premises, the DRI
mounted a discreet surveillance in the vicinity of the appellant's resi- )-
E deuce, and seized 100 foreign-marked gold biscuits from Uttam Chand,
a milk vendor. Uttam Chand disclosed that the said gold had been given
to him by the appellant. He also disclosed that the appellant had given
him 300 gold biscuits, and the remaining 200 gold biscuits had been
._..
taken away from him by Raj Kumar alias Chhotu, the servant uf the

F
appellant. Raj Kumar alias Chootu disclosed that he had delivered the
said 200 gold biscuits to one Bhuramal Jain. A search of Bhuramal
Jain's residence resulted in the recovery of the said 200 gold biscuits.
·t--·
Thns, 300 smuggled gold biscuits were seized by the DRI officers on
March 11, 1987.

A provisional order of detention of the appellant dated April 1.
G 1987 was passed by the respondent No.2, the detaining authority, under
section 3(1) of the Act, and duly communicated to the appellant along
with the grounds of detention dated April I, 1987 by the detaining ;-..
authority.

The case of the -appellant was referred to the Advisory Board
H constituted under sub-dause (a) of clause (4) of Article 22 of the Con-
42
VIJAY KUMAR v. U.0.1. 43

stitution of India for its opinion, whereupon the Board submitted its
A
report ditted May 13, 1987, and the Central Govt. by its order dated
June 24, 1987, in exercise of its powers under section 8(t) of the.Act,
confirmed the detention of the appellant, etc.

At this stage, it might be mentioned that before the order of
detention was passed by the detaining authority, the appellant had been B
arrested on a charge under section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962.

The appellant challenged the order of detention as confirmed by
the Central Government by a writ petition before the High Court which
dismissed the same. Similar detention orders having been passed in
respect of the said Uttam Chand, Bhuramal Jain and Raj Kumar alias
Chhotu, they had also challenged their detentions by writ petitions
c
before the High Court and the High Court had by the same judgment
under appeal allowed their writ petitions and quashed the orders of
detention. The appellant then appealed to this court for relief by special
leave.
D
Dismissing the appeal, the Court,

HELD: Per MurariMohon Dutt, J.

It was not correct to say (as contended by counsel for the appel-
lant) that the. detaining authority was not aware of the fact that the E
appellant was already in detention on a charge under section 135 of the

- I
Customs Act. The detaining authority was fully aware of the fact of the
arrest of the appellant as was evident from paragraph 13 of the grounds
of detention. It is not necessary that in the order of detention such
-.,-f awareness of the detaining authority has to be indicated. It is enough if
it appears from the grounds of detention that the detaioiri~ authority is F
aware of the fact that the detenu is already in detention. [SIC-El

I! was true that in Uttam_ Chand's case, the detaining_ authority
had proceeded. on the basis that the offence for which he had been
arrested and detained, was a bailable offence. But the question whether
or not a particular offence for which a detenu has been detained, is a G
bailable or non-bailable offence, does not have any bearing on the
question of passing an order of detention. Even though an offence is a
non-bailable one, an accused may be enlarged on bail. Again, a11
offence for which a detenu .has been put under detention, may be a
bailable offence. [51E-F]
H
44 SUPREME COURT REPORTS I1988] 3 S.C.R.

On a conspectus of a number of decisions of this Court, the Court
A was of the view that when a detenu is already under.detention for an
offence, whether bailable or non-bailable, the detaining authority. will
take into consideration the fact of detention of the detenu, and, as laid
down by this Court in Smt. Sashi Aggarwal. v. State of U.P. (Writ
·Petition (Crl.) No. 735 of 1987 disposed of on I J. 1.1988), there must be
B compelling reasons to justify his preventive detention in spite of the fact
that he is ·already under detention on the charge of a criminal offence.
There must be material for such compelling reasons and th.e material or
compelling reasons must appear from the grounds of detention that will
be communicated to the detenu. In other words, two facts must appear
from the grounds of detention, namely (i) awareness of the detaining
c authority of the fact that the detenu is already in detention, and (2)
there must'be compelling reasons justifying such detention, despite the
fact that the detenu is already under detention. [52F·H; 53A]

In this case, the Court was unable to accept the contention of the
appellant that there had been non-application of mind hy the detaining
o authority to the relevant facts. The detaining authority besides being
aware of the fact that the appellant was already in detention, had taken
into consideration the relevant facts before passing the impugned order
of detention under the Act, which was apparent from the grounds of
detention. In the circumstances, the contention that the impugned·,
order of detention should be struck down on the ground of non-app.lica·
E tion of mind by the detaining authority, was rejected. [53C·D]

It appeared from the observation made by the High Court that the
appellant, without making any prayer before the Advisory Body for the
examination of his witnesses or for giving him assistance of hisfri!'nd,
started arguing his own case, which in all probability, had given an
F impression to the members of the Advisory Boa•d that the appellant
would not examine any witness. The appellant should have made a
specific prayer before the Advisory Board that he would examine wit·
nesses, who were standing outside. The appellant had not made any .
such request to the Advisory Board. There was no reason for not
accepting the statement of the detaining authority that the appellant
G had been permitted by the Advisory Board to have the assistance of an
advocate or a friend at the time of hearing, but the appellant had not
availed himself of the same. In the circumstances, the court did not
think that there was any substance in the c9ntention of the appellant
th.at the Advisory Board had acted illegally and in violation of the princi·
pies of natural justice in not examining the witnesses produced hy the
H appellant at the meeting of the Advisory Board and in not
VIJAY KUMAR'v. U.0.1. 45
r \
g1vmg permission to the appellant to have the assistance of his
A
friend. l54H; 55A-C I

The appellant contended that both the Government and the
detaining authority made unreasonable delay in disposing of the
representations made by his wife and by himself, and that the re-
presentations were not considered independently inasmuch as the same B
/-- were disposed of after the Advisory Board submitted its report, and
in view of the above facts, the order of detention was illegal and
invalid. 1550-E)
""\- ;
In regard to the representation of the appellant's wife dated
11.4.1987, it appeared from paragraph 2 of the additional affidavit of C
~ Mr. S.K. Choudhary, Under Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Depart-
ment of Revenue, New Delhi, that comments from the ORI were
received by the senior Technical Officer on 28.4.1987. He could not
take action on 28.4. 1987 as hearing of the appellant's case before the
Advisory Board was fixed on that date. He placed the matter with his
note before the detaining authority on 30.4.87. It was apparent that the D
Senior Technical Officer dealt with the matter immediately on getting
the comments from the DRI and there was delay in putting up the
matter before the detaining authority or the Government, as the case
might be. l55F, H; 560, El

It was snbmitted on behalf of the appellant that the detaining E
authority had no jurisdiction to reject the representation when it was
meant for the Government. Mr. Kuldip Singh, Additional Solicitor
General pointed out on a reference to record that the detaining autho-
rity had not rejected the representation but only commented "merits
rejection". The Court could not accept the contention of the appellant
that the said comment of the detaining authority had influenced the F
mind of the Minister, who had considered the representation on behalf
of the Government, and that there was no necessity for getting a com-
ment from the detaining authority. Unless the comments of the relevant
authorities are placed before the Minister, it will be difficult for him to
properly consider the representation. There was no substance in the
contention that any comment from the detaining authority would influ· G
ence the mind of the Government. Such assumption was without found-
ation. The contention was rejected. l56H; 57 A-DI

As regards the representation dated 23.4.1987 of the appellant, to
the detaining authority, it was rejected as stated in the said additional
affidavit, by the detaining authority on 4.5.87, and the Additional H
46 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] 3 S.C.R.

solicitor-General pointed out with reference to the records that tile had
A not been forwarded to the Minister after the rejection of the representa-
tion by the detaining authority. In the Court's opinion, nothing tn111ed
on the fact that after the representation had been rejected, the relevant
tile had been sent to the Minister for his consideration. The Court was
also told by the Additional Solicitor General that the report of the
B Advisory Board was dated May 13, 1987 and both the representations
had been dispose.d pf by the detaining authority and the Gove111ment on
May 6, 1987, that is, much before the report of the Advisory Board. It
was apparent that as the report of the Advisory Board was dated May
i3, 1987, there was no foundation for the contention of ,the appellant
that the consideration of the representations had been influenced by the
report of the Advisory Board. 1570-H; SSA-Bl
c
As regards the appellant's grievance that he was not supplied with
the copies of the documents relied upon hy the detaining authority along
with the grounds of detention, there was no factual foundation in the
complaint made by the appellant that he had not been supplied with the
o relevant docnments along with the grounds of detention. I580 I

The contention of the appellant that the Government had not
applied its mind while confirming his detention for the maximnm
period of one year as prescribed in section 10 of the Act, was, in the
Court's opinion, devoid of any merit. Section 10 does not provide that
E in imposing the maximum period of detention, any reason has to he
given. In confirming the order of detention, it may he reasonably pre-
sumed that the Government has applied its mind to all the relevant
facts, and if it imposes the maximum period of detention, it cannot be
said that the Government has not applied its mind to the period of
detention. Under section 11 of the Act, a detention order may, at any
F time be revoked or modified by the Government. The court did not
think, in the circumstances, that the detenu was in the least prejudiced
or that there had been non-application of mind by the Government to
the question of period of detention of the detenu. [SSE-H; 59A]

The judgment of the High Court was affirmed. [59B I
G
Per K. Jagannatha Shetty, J. (concurring)

The first question was as to the legality of an order of detention of
a person who was already in custody. The Law Report contains several
decisions on this point and they furnish an instructive lesson for both
H sides. In all the cases, there is, however, one uniform principle stated
VIJA Y KUMAR_v. U .0.1. 47
)
and reiterated. It is this: the detaining authority must have awareness
A
of the fact that the detenu is already in custody·and yet for compelling
reason his preventive detention is found necessary. l59C-D I

The question now raised was what should be the compelling
reason justifying the preventive detention if the person was already in
jail and where one should find it? Is it from the grounds of detention or B
1' apart from the grounds of detention? l59D-E]

It was urged that apart from the grounds of detention, there must

~
he some other material disclosed to tlie detaining authority that if the
detenu was released on bail; he would again carry on the prejudicial
activity. His Lordship did not think that the contention was sound.
c
~- There cannot be any other material which can enter into the satisfaction
of the detaining authority, apart from the grounds of detention and
connected facts therein. The satisfaction of the detaining authority can
not be reached on extraneous matters. The need to put a person under
preventive detention depends only upon the grounds of detention. The
activities of the detenu may not be isolated or casual. They may be D
continuous or part of a transaction or racket prejudicial to the conser-
vation or augmentation of foreign exchange. Then, there may be need to
put the person under preventive detention, notwithstanding the fact
that he is under custody in connection with a case. There could not,
_J however, be any uniform principle to be applied in this regard. Each
\ case had to be judged on its own facts and grounds of detention. If the E
grounds are germane, it would be perfectly legitimate exercise of power
to make an order of detention. l59E-G; 60B-C]

In this case, having regard to the nature of the grounds furnished
to the detenu, there was hardly any justification to find fault with the
~ orderofdetention. l60C] F

The next aspect which needed to be clarified was whether it was
necessary for the concerned authority to give special reasons for direct-
ing the detention for the maximum period prescribed under the Act. It
was urged that it was a must for the concerned authority to give special
reasons, and if no such reasons were given, then, it amounted to non- G
application of the mind. The Court was unable to subscribe to this view.
,J It was against the purpose and scheme of the COFEPOSA Act. The
order made under section 3( l) is in the nature of an interim order. It is
subject to the opinion of the Advisory Board under section 8(0 of the
COFEPOSA Act. If the Advisory Board reports that there is in its
opinion sufficient cause for the detention of the person, the concerned H
48 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] 3 S.C.R.

A authority may confirm and continue the detention of the person for
such period as it thinks fit. The expression "as it thinks fit" in section
8(1') of the Act indicates that the concerned authority after considering
the report of the Advisory Board may f'IX any period for detention. The
authority is not required to give any special reason either for f'IXing a
shorter period or for f'IXing the maximum period prescribed nnder
B section 10. The opinion of the Advisory Board and the grounds of
detention are the only basis for confirming and continuing the deten·
tion. Section 11 provides for revocation or modification of the detention
order at any time. When the power to revoke the order of detention
could be exercised at any time, it is not necessary for the authority to
articulate special reasons for continuing the detention for any period much
less for the maximum period prescribed noder the Act. [60D-E, G-JI; 61E-G I
c
Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate Burdwan, [19641 4 SCR
921; Ramesh Yadav v. District magistrate, Etah, [1985] 4 SCC 232;
Suraj Pal Sahu v. State of Maharashtra, [19861 4 SCC 378; 391, Smt.
Sashi Aggarwal v. State of U.P., (writ petition (Crl.) No. 735 of 1987
D disposed of by this court on 11.1.1988) and Bharat v. District magis-
trate, I19851 Criminal Law Journal, 1976, referred to.

CRIMINAL APPELLATE WRISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 9 of 1988.
~-
E - From the Judgment and Order dated 19.10.87 in the High Court !
of Delhi in Criminal Petition No. 239 of 1987.

D .D. Thakur, Harjinder Singh and N. Malhotra for the
Appellant.
_,,____
F Kuldip Singh, Additional Solicitor General, C. V. Sobba Rao /
and Heman! Sharma for the Respondents.

The following Judgments of the Court were delivered:

DUTT, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the
G judgment of the Delhi High Court whereby the High Court dismissed
the writ petition of the appellant challenging the validity of his deten-
tion under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of _)-.,
Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'.

Information was received in the Directorate of Revenue Intelli-
H gence (for short 'DRI') that the appellant was engaged in receipt,
VIJAY KUMAR v. U.0.1. !DUTT, J.] 49

storage and disposal of smuggled gold on a large scale. On a specific A
information received on March 11, 1987 that large quantity of gold had
been received by the appellant and stored at his instance in various
premises, the DRI mounted a discreet surveillance in the vicinity of
the residence of the appellant. Shorn of all details, it may be stated
that· 100 foreign marked gold biscuits, each weighing 10 .Tolas, were
seized from Uttam Chand, a milk vandor. It was disclosed by Uttam B
.I .. >.. Chand that the said gold had been given to him by the appellant. He
also disclosed that the appellant had given him 300 gold biscuits. The
remaining 200 gold biscuits were taken away from Uttam Chand by
Raj Kumar alias Chhotu, the servant of the appellant. Raj Kumar alias
Chhotu, however, disclosed. that he had delivered the said 200 gold
biscuits to one Bhuramal Jain of E/19, Ashok Vihar, Phase-I, New
Delhi. The search of the residence of Bhuramal Jain resulted in the
c
recovery of the said 200 biscuits of foreign marked gold from a zipper
bag.

It is the case of the detaining authority that the appellant Vijay
D
Kumar had, at the instance of one Dubai based smuggler Mohideen,
agreed to receive and dispose of smuggled foreign marked gold
biscuits in Delhi, which would be supplied to him by two men of
Mohideen, named Chandra Bhan and M.P., for a monetary considera-
,-J tion. It is alleged that pursuant to that arrangement, the appellant had
I received in all 1150 biscuits of foreign m~rked gold of 10 Tolas each
E
from the said Chandra Bhan and M.P. between the end of January,
1987 and March 7, 1987. A part of this quantity of smuggled gold was
alleged to have been delivered by the appellant to one Prakash Luniya
' and another part of it was, from time to time, stored by the appellant
in the residence of Uttam Chand, who had been engaged by the appel-
lant to store such smuggled gold on behalf of the appellant for a
F
monetary consideration. As stated already, 300 smuggled gold biscuits
were seized by the DRI officers on March 11, 1987. These 300 gold
biscuits each weighing 10 Tolas, that is, in all 3000 Tolas, were valued
at Rs.92,33,620.

A provisional orcler of detention of the appellant dated April 1, G
1987 was passed by the respondent No. 2, Mr. Tarun Roy, Joint Secre-
tary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of
Revenue, New Delhi, the detaining authority, under section 3(1) of the
Act, with a view to preventing the appellant from dealing in the smug-
gled goods otherwise than by engaging in transporting or concealing or
keeping smuggled goods. The order of detention and the grounds of H
50 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19881 3 S.C.R.

A detention both dated April 1, 1987 were duly communicated to the
appellant by the detaining authority.

The case of the appellant was referred to the Advisory Board
constituted under sub-dause (a) of clause (4) of Article 22 of the
Constitution of India for its opinion whether there was sufficient cause
B for the detention of the appellant. The Advisory Board, after hearing
.• the petitioner, submitted its report dated May 13, 1987. The Central
Government by its order dated June 24, 1987, in exercise of its powers
conferred by section 8(f) of the Act, confirmed the detention of the
appellant and directed that under section 10 of the Act the appellant
would be detained for a period of one year from the date of his deten-
tion, that is, from April 2, 1987.
c
At this stage, it may be stated that before the order of detention
was passed by the detaining authority, the appellant Vi jay Kumar was
arrested on a charge under section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962.

D Being aggrieved by the order of detention as confirmed by the
.Central Government, the appellant challenged the same by filing a
writ petition before the Delhi High Court and, as stated already, the
High Court dismissed the writ petition. Hence this appeal by special
leave.

E Before considering the contentions of the parties, it may be
stated here that similar detention orders were passed in respect of the
said Uttam Chand, Bhuramal Jain and Raj Kumar alias Chhotu. They
also challenged their detentions by filing writ petitions before the
Delhi High Court. The High Court, however, by the same judgment
under appeal allowed their writ petitions and quashed the orders of }'-·
F detention.

It is urged by Mr. Thakur, learned Counsel appearing on behalf
of the appellant, that the detaining authority was obliged to consider
before passing the order of detention that the detenu was already in
detention on a charge under section 135 of the Customs Act, but there
G is no indication in the order of detention that such consideration was
made or that the detaining authority was aware that the appellant was
already under detention. It is submitted that as there has been non--
application of mind by the detaining authority as to the said fact of
·detention, the order of detention is illegal and invalid.

H Further, it is submitted by the learned Counsel that while the
VIJAY KUMAR v. U.0.1. [DUTT, J.] 51

offence under section 135 of the Customs Act is a non-bailable one,
the detaining authority proceeded on an erroneous assumption that A
the offence was bailable. In support of that contention, the learned
Counsel has drawn our attention to the_ fact, as recorded by the High
Court, that the detaining authority stated in his counter-affidavit that
he was aware at the time of passing the detention order that Uttam
Chand was in jail, but there was every likelihood of his being released B
~ from jail, as the offence under section 135 of the Customs Act was a
f
bailable one. It is urged by the learned Counsel that the detaining
authority was not at all justified in passing the order of detention on
such assumption.

It is not correct to say that the detaining authority was not aware
of the fact that the appellant was already in detention on a charge C
under section 135 of the Customs Act. Indeed, in paragraph 13 of the
grounds of detention, it has been categorically noticed by the detaining.
authority that Bhuramal Jain, Uttam Chand, Narender Kumar, Raj
Kumar and the appellant were all arrested by the DRI officers on
March 13, 1987 and produced before the Additional Chief Metropoli- D
,
• tan Magistrate, New Delhi. Thus, the detaining authority was fully
aware of the fact of the arrest of the appellant. It is not necessary that
J in the order of detention such awareness of the detaining authority has
to be indicated. It is enough if it appears from the grounds of detention
~ that the detaining authority is aware of the fact that the detenu is
mt 1 already in detention. E
-i
It is true that in Uttam Chand's case, the detaining authority
proceeded on the basis that the offence for which he was arrested and
detaining was a bailable offence. Although there is no such statement
of the detaining authority in regard to the appellant, it may be assumed
that he was also of the impression that the offence under section 135 of F
the Customs Act, for which the appellant was arrested and detained in
jail, was a bailable offence. But, the question whether or not a particu-
lar offence, for which a detenu has been detained, is a bailable or
non-bailable offence, does not, in our opinion, have any bearing on
the question of passing an order of detention. Even though an offence
is a non-bailable one, an accused may be enlarged on bail. Again, an G
offence for which a detenu has been put under detention, may be a
_, -1. bailable offence. It has been observed by this Court in Rameshwar
Shaw v. District Magistrate, Burdwan, [1964] 4 SCR 921 that whether
an order of detention can be against a person who is already in deten-
tion or in jail, will always have to be determined in the facts and
circumstances of each case. Again, in Ramesh Yadav v. District Magis- H
52 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988) 3 S.C:R.

A Irate, Etah, I1985] 4 sec 232 it has been ruled by this Court that ·y
merely on the ground that an accused in detention as an under-trial
prisoner was likely to get bail, an order of detention under the
National Security Act, should not ordinarily be passed.

The position has been made clear in Suraj Pal Sahu v. State of
B Maharashtra, [1986] 4 SCC 378. While reiterating the principles of law
laid down in Ramesh Yadav's case (supra), this Court further observes~.
where the offences in respect of which the detenu is accused are so
inter-linked and continuous in character and are of such nature that
these affect continuous maintenance of essential supplies and thereby ., r•
jeopardize the security of the State, then subject to other conditions 'fA... •
being fulfilled, a man being in detention would not detract from the .
c order being passed for preventive detention. ·~•

In a recent decision in Smt. SashiAggarwalv. State of U.P., Writ
Petition (Cr!.) No. 735 of 1987 disposed ofon 11.1.1988, this Court has
made a review of all the decisions on the point. One of us, (Jagannatha
•
'
,_.,,.

D Shetty, J.) speaking for the Court observed as follows:

'
•
"Section 3 of the National Security Act does not preclude
the authority from making an order of detention against a
person while he is in custody or in jail, but the. relevant
facts in connection with the making of the order would ~
E make all the difference in every case. The validity cif the >

-•
order of detention has to be judged in every individual case·
on its own facts. There must be material apparently dis-
closed to the detaining authority in each case that the
person against whom an order of preventive detention is
being made is already under custody and yet for compelling ,..,_. ,...
F reasons, his pr:ventive detention is necessary."

On a conspectus of the above decisions, we are of the view that.
when a detenu is already under detention for an offence, whether
bailable or non-bailable, the detaining authority will take into his
consideration the fact of detention of the detenu and, as laid down in
•
G Sashi Aggarwal's case (supra), there must be compelling reasons to
justify his preventive detention in spite of the fact that he is already
under detention on a charge of a criminal offence. There must be 1>--
material for such compelling reasons and the material or compelling
reasons must appear from the grounds of detention that will be com-
municated to the detenu. In other words, two facts must appear from
H the grounds of detention, namely, (1) awareness of the detaining
VIJAY KUMAR v. U.0.1. [DlJIT, J.) 53

authority of the fact that the detenu is already in detention and (2) A
there must be compelling reasons justifying such detention, despite the
fact that the detenu is, already under detention.

In the instant case, it has been already noticed that the detaining
authority was aware of the fact that the appellant was arrested and
produced before the Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi. B
k The grounds of detention also disclosed compelling reasons that the ..
appellant should be preventively detained under the Act in spite of his
detention on a charge under section 135 of the Customs Act. It is not
the case of the appellant that the grounds of detention do not disclose
compelling reasons. All that has been urged on behalf of the appellant
is that there has been non-application of mind by the detafo.ing auiho-
rity of the fact of detention of the appellant. We are, however, unable
c
to accept the contetion made on behalf of the appellant that there has
been non-application of mind by the detaining authority to the rele-
vant facts. The detaining authority, besides being aware of the fact
that the appellant was already in detention, has taken into considera-
tion the relevant facts before passing the impugned order of detention D
under the Act, which is apparent from the grounds of detention. In the
circumstances, the contention that the impugned order of detention
should be struck down on the ground of non-application of niind by
the detaining authority, is rejected.

It is next contended on behalf of the appellant that the Advisory E
Board acted contrary to the principles of natural justice in not examin-
ing the witnesses of the appellant whom the appellant wished to ex-
amine in rebuttal of the allegations made in the grounds of detention
and also in not considering the request of the appellant to have the
assistance of his friend before the Advisory Board. In order to con-
sider this contention, a few facts may be stated. On April 29, 1987, the F
Advisory Board held its meeting. On April 27, 1987, the appellant
made a representation to the Advisory Board. In that representation,
it has been stated by the appellant ''I want to produce in rebuttal of the
allegations made against me,. Shri Raj Kumar, Uttam Chand and Shri
N arender as my witnesses. They are present and they may be
examined in rebuttal of the.allegations made against me in the grounds G
of detention.". A copy of this representation dated 23.4.1987 was filed
before the Advisory Board on 29.4.'1987. This fact has not been denied
in the affidavit of the respondents. · ·, .

It is submitted by the learned Counsel of the appellant that when
there is a specific prayer in the said presentation that the appellant H
54 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] 3. S.C.R.

A would like to examine certain witnesses who were present outside, the
''(
Board room, the Advisory Board acted illegally and in violation of
the principles of natural justice in not giving the appellant an oppor-
tunity to examine the witnesses. Further, it is submitted that the
Advisory Board should have also allowed the appellant to have the
assistance of his friend, who was also waiting outside the Board room,
B in defending the appellant before the Advisory Board. Affidavits of
the said witnesses and also of the friend, who was to assist the appel- ,--+
!ant, were filed before the High Court in support of the allegation that
they were all present and waiting outside the Board room.

Mr. Tarun Roy, the detaining authority, filed a counter-affidavit
wherein he stated that the appellant did not ask for the examination of
c these witnesses though he stated so in his representation regarding the
examination of the witnesses. The appellant himself explained his case
before the Advisory Board and kept silent as to whether his witnesses
were present outside or whether he would like to examine them in
rebuttal of the charges made against him. Further, it is stated in the
D affidavit that the appellant did not bring his friend with him to assist
him, although he had stated in his representation that he might be
permitted the assistance of an advocate or a friend at the time of
hearing. The allegations of the appellant that he was denied his right to
examine witnesses or the assistance of a friend have been stated by the
detaining authority in his affidavit as totally false. It has been also
E averred by the detaining authority in his affidavit that the appellant
was permitted by the Advisory Board to have the assistance of an
advocate or a friend at the time of hearing, but the appellant did not
avail himself of the same.
-
A similar contention was raised before the High Court. The High
F Court, after referring to the affidavit of the detaining authority, has
observed that it was for the detenu at the time of hearing to submit to
the Advisory Board that his witnesses, who were present outside the
Board room, should be examined, and that he should also be allowed
assistance of his friend. Referring to the report of the Advisory Board
dated May 13, .1987, the High Court points out that while the appellant
G Vijay Kumar, Raj Kumar and Uttam Chand appeared in person,
Bhuramal Jain was represented by his Counsel before the Advisory
Board. The Advisory Board did consider the representation of Vi jay
Kumar and heard him and also the Co-detenus.

It appears from the observation made by the High Court that the ''
H appellant, without making any prayer before the Advisory Board for
VJJAY KUMAR v. U.0.1. IDUTI, J.] 55

the examination of his witnesses or for giving him assistance of his A
friend, started arguing his own· case, which in all probability, had given
an impression to the members of the Advisory Board that the appel-
lant would not examine any witness. The appellant should haye made a
specific prayer before the Advisory Board that he would examine
witnesses, who were standing outside. The appellant, however, did not
make any such request to the Advisory Board .. There is n.o reason for B
not accepting the statement of the detaining authority that the appel-
lant was permitted by the Advisory Board to have the assistance of an
. advocate or a friend at the time of hearing, but the appellant did not
avail himself of the same. In the circumstances, we do not think that
thereis any substance in the contention made on behalf of the appel-
lant that the Advisory Board acted illegally and in violation of the _ C
principles of natural justice in not examining the witnesses produced ·
by the appellant at the meeting of the advisory Board and in not giving
permission to the appellant to have the assistance of his friend.

The appellant's wife sent a representation dated 11.4.1987 to the
Government . and the appellant also sent a representation dated D
23.4.1987 to the detaining authority. It is the contention of the appel-
. !ant that both the Government and the detaining authority made
unreasonable delay in disposing of the representations. Ir is also
complained that the representations were not considered indepen-
dently inasmuch as the same were disposed of after the Advisory
Board submitted its report. It is submitted that in view of the above E
facts, the order of detention turns out to be illegal and invalid and
should be quashed.

In regard to the representation of the appellant's wife dated
11.4.1987, we may refer to the additional affidavit affirmed by Mr.
S.K. Chaudhary, Under Secretary to the Government of India, F
Ministry 6f Finance, Department of Revem1e, New Delhi, on behalf of
the respondents. In paragraph 2 of the additional affidavit it has been
stated as follows:

"I submit that ill the above case, the petitioner's wife's
representatibn dated 11.4.1987 was received by the office G
of the Ministry of State for Finance on 21,4,1987 and from
that office, it was received in COFEPOSA Unit on
22.4.1987, on which date, the comments from the Directo-
rate of Revenue Intelligence were called for. The
· comments from the said Directorate were received on
27.4.1987 at·5.35 'p.m. These comments were received by H
56 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988) 3 S.C.R.

A
the Senior Technical Officer on 28.4.1987. He, however, ·y
could not take action on 29.4.1987 as the hearing.of the
petitioner's case was fixed before the Advisory Board on
that date. The Senior Technical Officer put his note on
30.4.1987 to the Detaining Authority. The Detaining
Authority was, however, on leave on 1.5.1987 and 2nd May
B and 3rd May 1987, being holidays, the Detaining Authority
passed orders on 4.5.1987 rejecting the representation of ---t.
the petitioner's wife and forwarded the file to the Minister
of State for Finance for his consideration on behalf of the
Central Government. The Minister rejected the represen-
tation on 6.5.1987 and the file was received in the section
concerned on 7.5.1987. Thereafter, the memo regarding
c rejection of the representation was issued on 8.5.1987."

It appears from paragraph 2 of the affidavit extracted above that
comments from the DRI were received by the Senior Technical Officer
on 28.4.1987. He', however, could not take action on 29.4.1987 as
D hearing of the appellant's case was fixed before the Advisory Board on
that date and, accordingly, he placed the matter with his note on
30 .4 .1987 before the detaining authority. Mr. Thakur, Counsel for the
appellant, demurs to the dealing of the matter by the Senior Technical
Officer and not by the detaining authority himself. We do not think
that any objection can.be raised on this account. It is apparent that the
E Senior Technical Officer dealt with the matter immediately on getting
the comments from the DRI so that there was no delay in putting up
the matter before the detaining authority or the Government, as the
case may be. Whatever steps he had taken must have been on behalf of
the detaining authority and for expedition. Although he received the
comments on 28.4.1987, he could not take action on 29.4.1987, as the
F hearing of the appellant's case was fixed before the Advisory Board on
that date. It can be reasonably inferred from this statement that it was
necessary for the Senior Technical Officer to be present before the
Advisory Board with the relevant records and, consequently, a day's
delay in putting up the matter before the detaining authority was quite
justified.
G
It is, however, complained that when the representation was
made to the Government, it was not at all justified on the part of the /-
detaining authority to reject the representation. In other words, it is
submitted, the detaining authority had no jurisdiction to reject the
representation when it was meant for the Government. It is true that
H the said S.K. Chaudhary has stated in his affidavit that the detaining
VIJAY KUMAR v. U.0.1. [DUTI, J.I 57

authority rejected the representation of the appellant's wife by his
A
order dated 4.5.1987. Mr. Kuldip Singh, the learned Additional
Solicitor General, however, points out on a reference to the record,
that the detaining authority did not n!'ject the representation, but only
commented "merits rejection." Thus, a wrong statement has been
made in the affidavit. Even though the position· is altered, yet it is
submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the comment B
t' of the detaining authority "merits rejection" had influenced the mind
of the Minister, who considered the representation on behalf of the
Government. Counsel further submits that there was no necessity for
getting a comment from the detaining authority inasmuch as any
comment by him against the detenu would influence the mind of the
Government. We are unable to accept the contention. In our view,
unless the comments of the releyant authorities are placed before the
c
Minister, it will be difficult for him to properly consider the represen-
tation. There is no substance in the contention that any comment from
the detaining ·authority would influence the mind of the Government.
Such assumption is without any foundation. The contention in this
regard is, accordingly, rejected. D

As regards the representation dated 23.4.1987 of the appellant to
the detaining authority, it appears from the statement made in
paragraph 3 of the said additional affidavit that it was rejected by him
on 4.5.1987. There is a further statement that after such rejection, the
file was forwarded to the Minister of State for Finance for his consi- E
deration on behalf of the Central Government and the Minister
rejected the representation on 6.5.1987. It is contended by Mr.
Thakur, learned Counsel for the appellant, that as the representation
I
was addressed to the detaining authority, there was no necessity for
-1 forwarding the file to the Minister after the representation was rejec-
ted by the detaining authority. The learned Additional Solicitor F
General, however, points out with reference to the records, that the
file was not forwarded to the Minister after the rejection of the
representation by the detaining authority. There was, therefore, a
mistake in the statement made in paragraph 3 of the said additional
affidavit. In our opinion, nothing turns out on the fact that after the
representation was rejected the relevant file was sent to the Minister d
I for his consideration.
-'·
We are also told by the learned Additi.onal Solicitor General that
the report of the Advisory Board is dated May 13, 1987 and both the
representations were disposed of by the detaining authority and the
·Government on May 6, 1987, that is, much before the report of the H
58 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] 3 S.C.R.

Advisory Board and, as such, there is no question of the consideration
A
of the representations of the appellant and his wife being influenced by
the report of"the Advisory Board. It i; apparent that as the report of
the Advisory Board is dated May 13, 1987, there is no foundation for
the contention of the appellant that th-e consideration of the represen-
tation~ was influenced by the report of the Advisory Board.
B
It is urged by the appellant that he was greatly prejudiced as he
was not supplied with the copies of the documents that were relied
upon and taken into consideration by the detaining authority along
with the ground of detention and that such documents, as asked for by
him, were given to him only on 20.5.1987 and, therefore, there was a
delay of 28 days. A similar contention was advanced before the High
c Court. According to the respondents, the documents were all supplied
to the appellant with the grounds of detention. In his representation,
the appellant had asked for four documents and the Higb Court was
satisfied that all these four dcicmnents had, in fact, been supplied to
the appellant. Accordingly, it has been observed by the High Court
D that the appellant cannot make any grievance that these documents
were supplied to him only on 20.5.1987 and not along with the grounds
of detention. There is, therefore, no factual foundation in the comp-
laint made by the appellant that he was not supplied with the relevant
documents along with the grounds of detention.

E The last point that has been urged on behalf of the appellant is
that the Government has not applied its mind while confirming the
detention of the appellant for the maximum period of one year from
the date of detention as prescribed in section 10 of the Act. It is
submitted that some reason should have been given why the maximum
period of detention is imposed on the appellant. This contention, in
F our opinion, is devoid of any merit. Section 10 of the Act provides,
inter alia, that the maximum period for which any person may be
detained in pursuance of any detention order shall be a period of one
year from -the date of detention or the specified period. Section 10
does not provide that in imposing the maximum period of detention,
any reason has to be given. In confirming the order of detention, it
G may be reasonably presumed that the Government has applied its
mind to all the relevant facts and, thereafter, if it imposes the max-
imum period of detention, it cannot be said that the Government has
not applied its mind as to the period of detention. In any event, under
section 11 of the Act, a detention order may, at any time, be revoked
or modified by the Government. In the circumstances, we do not think
H that the detenu was in the least prejudiced or that there has been
VUAY KUMAR v. U.0.1. ISHETrY, J.] 59

non-application of mind by the Government to the question of period
A
of detention of the detenu. This contention of the appellant also fails.
No other point has been urged in this appeal.

For the reason aforesaid, the judgment .of the High Court is
affirmed and the appeal is dismissed.
' B
t' JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J. I agree respectfully with the Judg-
ment of my learned brotherM.M. Dutt, J., but I add a few words of my
own on the ever recurring question.

The first question is as to the legality of an order of detention of
the person who was already in custody. The Law Report contains
several decisions on this point and they furnish an instructive lesson for
c
both sides. In all the cases, there is, however, one uniform principle
stated and reiterated. It is this: The detaining authority must have
awareness of the fact that the detenu is already in custody and yet for
compelling reason his preventive detention is found necessary.
D
The question now raised is what should be the compelling reason
justifying the preventive detention if the person is already in jail and
where one should. find it? Is it from the grounds of detention or apart
from the grounds of detention? It was urged that apart from· the
~ grounds of detention there must be some other material disclosed to
the detaining authority that if the detenu is released on bail he would E
again carry on the prejudicial activities.

I do not think that the contention is sound. There cannot be any
other material which can enter into the satisf~ction of the detaining
authority, apart from the grounds of detention and the connected facts
there in. The satisfaction of the detaining authority cannot be reached F
mi extraneous matters. The need to put the person under preventive
detention depends only upon the grounds of detent\on. The activities
of the detenu may not be isolated c>r casual. They niay be continuous·
or part of a transaction of racket prejudicial to the conservation or
augmentation of foreign exchange. Then there may be need to put the
person under preventive detention, notwithst_anding the .fact that he is G
J. under custody in connection with a case. As said Dy Sabyasachi
Mukharji, J. in Suraj Pal Sahu v. State of Maharashtra, [1986] 4 S.C.
378 at 391.

" ... But where the offence in respect of which .the
detenu is accused are so interlinked and continuous· in H
60 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988) 3 S.C.R.

character and are of such nature that these affect continu-
A
ous maintenance of essential supplies and thereby jeopar-
dize the security of the State, then subject to other condi-
tions being fulfilled, a man being in detention would not
detract from the order being passed for preventive
detention."
B
~·
There cannot, however, be any uniform principle to b.e applie.d
in this regard. Each case has to be judged on its own facts and on its
own grounds of detention. If the grounds are germane it would be
perfectly legitimate exercise of power to make an order of detention.

c In the instant case, having regard to the nature of the grounds
furnished to the detenu, I agree with my learned brother, that there is
hardly any justification to find fault with the order of detention.

The next aspect which needs to be clarified is whether it is neces-
D
sary for the concerned authority to give special reasons for directing
the detention for the maximum period prescribed under the Act. It
was, urged that it is a must for the concerned authority to give special
reasons. And if no such reasons are given, then it amounts to non-
application of the mind. The decision of the Madhya Pradesh High
Court, (Gwalior Bench) in Bharat v. District Magistrate, 1986 Crimi-
E
nal Law Journal, 1976 was relied upon in support of the contention.
There it was observed (at p. 186).

"We did not find in the records consideration of relevant
circumstances that obtained on the date when the confir-
F mation was made in each case. No reasons are given as to
why the authority concerned considered it necessary to
continue detention in each case for maximum period of
twelve months. Whether the objective sought'to be fulfilled
in each case could be subserved by fixing the period of
continued detention for a lesser period was not at all
G considered."

We are unable to subscribe to this view. It is against the purpose and
scheme of the COFEPOSA Act. The order made under Section 3( I) is
in the nature of an interim order. It is subject to the opinion of the
Advisory Board under Section 8(f) of the COFEPOSA Act which
H provides:
VJJA Y KUMAR v. U.0.1. [SHE1TY, J. I 61

8: Advisory Board A

For the purposes of sub-clause (a) of clause (4) and
sub clause (c) of clause (7), of Article 22 of the Consti-
tution:
B
xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

. xxx xxxxxx

xxx

(f) in every case where the Advisory Board has reported c
that there is in its opinion sufficient cause for the detention
of a person, the appropriate Government may confirm the
detention order and continue the detention of the person
concerned for such period as it thinks fit and in every case
where the Advisory Board has reported that there is in its
D
opinion no sufficient cause for the detention of the person
concerned, the appropriate Government shall revoke the
detention order and cause the person· to be released
forthwith."

If the Advisory Board reports that there is in its opinion suffi-
E
cient cause for the detention of the person, the concerned authority
may confirm and continue the detention·of the person for such period
as it thinks fit. The expression "as it thinks fit" in Section S(f) of-the
Act indicates that the concerned authority after considering the .report
of the Advisory Board-may fii"any period for detention. T!ie authority
_J is not required.to give aliy~"S'~ecial reason either for fixing a shor:ter
F
\ period or for fi~ing th~· maximum period prescribed 'under Section 10'.
The opinion of the Advisory Board and the grounds of detention are
the only basis for confirming and continuing the detention, for any
pe'riod, even tipto the maximum period prescribed. Section 11 pro-
vides for revo~ation of ctetention order. The detention order may at
any time be revoked or modified. When the power to revoke the order
of detention could be exercis.ed at any time, it is not necessary for the G
! authority to articulate special reasons for continuing the detention for
~, any period much less for the maximum period prescribed under the
1
Act. '

S.L. Appeal dismissed.
H