State Of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Shakeel Ahmed On 28 November, 1995

Q: Q. What are the equivalent citations for State of Uttar Pradesh vs Shakeel Ahmed ?

The equivalence citation are1996 (54) ECC 77 ; (1996) 1 SCC 337 ; 1996 (1) ALD (CRL) 151 ; 1996 -2-LW (CRL) 567 ; [1995] (SUPPL.) 5 SCR 737 ; 1995 (6) SCALE 732 ; 1995 (4) CRIMES 782 ; 1 (1996) CCR 55 ; JT 1995 (8) SC 561 ; (1996) SCC (CRI) 108 ; 1996 (1) SCJ 189 ; LQ/SC/1995/1212 ;

Q: Q. What was the bench assigned for the case State of Uttar Pradesh vs Shakeel Ahmed?

HONBLE JUSTICE K. RAMASWAMY, HONBLE JUSTICE S. B. MAJMUDAR

Open iDraf

State Of Uttar Pradesh v. Shakeel Ahmed

State Of Uttar Pradesh
v.
Shakeel Ahmed

(Supreme Court Of India)

No | 28-11-1995

RAMASWAMY, K. & MAJMUDAR S.B. (J)

1. 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.

2. Under these circumstances, the order of the High Court setting aside the detention order is clearly illegal. However, since t he period has already expired, we do not think that it is a case warranting further detention of the respondent.

3. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.

Advocates List

For

Bench List

HON'BLE JUSTICE K. RAMASWAMY

HON'BLE JUSTICE S. B. MAJMUDAR

Eq Citation

1996 (54) ECC 77

(1996) 1 SCC 337

1996 (1) ALD (CRL) 151

1996 -2-LW (CRL) 567

[1995] (SUPPL.) 5 SCR 737

1995 (6) SCALE 732

1995 (4) CRIMES 782

1 (1996) CCR 55

JT 1995 (8) SC 561

(1996) SCC (CRI) 108

1996 (1) SCJ 189

LQ/SC/1995/1212

HeadNote

Human and Civil Rights — Habeas Corpus — Illegal detention — Respondent detained on July 31, 1989 under S. 3(1)(iii) of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act — High Court set aside order of detention on ground that delay in non-consideration of representation for one month, i.e., from Feb. 20, 1990 to March 15, 1990, was not explained and also on ground that copy of report of sponsoring authority had not been supplied to detenu — Held, High Court was not right in setting aside order of detention on these grounds — It is not mandatory that report of sponsoring authority should be supplied to detenu under Art. 22(5) of Constitution — It is only a material furnished to detaining authority — All material on which reliance was placed for order of detention was admittedly supplied to detenu — In facts and circumstances of this case, delay in disposal of representation of about 23 days also is not fatal — However, since period has already expired, it is not a case warranting further detention of respondent