Dr D Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
1. The High Court has set aside an order of detention issued under Section 3(1)(ii) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act 1974 on the ground that the period of detention was not specified. In arriving at this conclusion, the High Court has relied upon a decision of this Court in Commissioner of Police v Gurbux Anandram Bhiryani, and on a judgment of the High Court in S Santhi v The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai.
2. The Government of Tamil Nadu is in appeal.
Government of Tamil Nadu.
“13. This Court has consistently taken the view that an order of detention is not rendered illegal merely because it does not specify the period of detention. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Ujagar Singh v. State of Punjab [(1952) 3 SCR 756: AIR 1952 SC 350 [LQ/SC/1951/13] : 1953 Cri LJ 146] , while considering validity of detention order made under Section 3 of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 held that non-specification of any definite period in a detention order made under Section 3 of thewas not a material omission rendering the order invalid. In Suna Ullah Butt v. State of Jammu & Kashmir [(1973) 3 SCC 1973 SCC (Cri) 138 [LQ/SC/1972/373] : (1973) 1 SCR 870 [LQ/SC/1972/373] ] , validity of detention order made under Jammu and Kashmir Preventive Detention Act, 1964 was under challenge on the ground that the State Government while confirming the detention order under Section 12 of thehad failed to specify the period of detention. The court held that since the State Government had power to revoke or modify the detention order at any time before the completion of the maximum period prescribed under the, it was not necessary for the State Government to specify the period of detention. In Suresh Bhojraj Chelani v. State of Maharashtra [(1983) 1 SCC 382 [LQ/SC/1982/212] : 1983 SCC (Cri) 202] , while considering the validity of the detention order made under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 this Court rejected similar submission made on behalf of the detenu that order of detention was vitiated as the government had failed to mention the period of detention while confirming the order of detention. The court held that the COFEPOSA Act did not require the detaining authority to mention the period of detention in the order of detention. When no period is mentioned in an order, the implication is that the detention is for the maximum period prescribed under the.” (Id at page 464) .
The decision in Bhiryani’s case has been overruled.
5. In the circumstances, the High Court was not justified in quashing the order of detention on the basis that no period of detention was provided in the order. The High Court has proceeded on the basis of the decision of this Court in Bhiryani which is no longer good law in view of the subsequent decision of a larger Bench in Devaki. The decision of the High Court in Santhi, to the extent that it adopts the same position as in Bhiryani, will not reflect the correct legal position.
7. The criminal appeal is accordingly disposed of.
FINAL ORDER
Hon’ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud pronounced the Judgment of the Bench comprising Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India; Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.M. Khanwilkar and His Lordship, disposing of the Criminal Appeal in terms of the signed reportable Judgment.
