Skip to content


State of Gujarat and ors. Vs. Jat Harun Dada - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Appeal No. 438 of 1981
Judge
Reported inAIR1981SC2338; 1981CriLJ1872; (1982)1GLR193; 1981(3)SCALE1705; (1981)4SCC659; 1982(14)LC41(SC)
ActsConstitution of India - Article 136
AppellantState of Gujarat and ors.
RespondentJat Harun Dada
Excerpt:
.....regulation zone notification. the said notification classifies the area within 500 meters of high tide land, into crz-i, crz-ii, crz-iii and crz-iv categories. the notification inter alia provides that buildings shall be permitted only on the landward side of the existing road and buildings and shall be subject to the existing local town and country planning regulations including the existing norms of floor space index. the ministry of environment and forest had clarified that the existing dc regulations applicable to crz-ii areas in mumbai would mean the dc rules, 1967. section 3 of the environment (protection) act, 1986 inter alia provides that the provisions of the act and any order or notification issued under the said act will prevail over the provisions of any other law. the..........learned counsel draws our attention to the following portion of the document containing the grounds of detention:the statements and documents which form the basis for the allegations made hereinabove, copies of which are enclosed, are as under:1. report dated 8th october, 1979 from the sector commander, bsf camp, khavda.2. panchnama dated 8th october, 1979 drawn by the customs officers of khavda.3. your statement dated 9th october, 1979 recorded by the customs officers.4. statement dated 9th october, 1979 of yakub sumar jat. on going through the all relevant materials and documents produced by the sponsoring authority, the state government has decided to detain you; the submission is that the documents enumerated above being part of the 'grounds' were furnished to the detenu, who.....
Judgment:

Baharul Islam, J.

1. This appeal by Special leave by the State of Gujarat (hereinafter 'the appellant') is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Gujarat dated 18th of June, 1980, quashing the order of detention passed by appellant under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974.

2. Only one point urged before us on behalf of the appellant is that the finding of the High Court that the respondent was not furnished with the documents and statements is not correct. Learned counsel draws our attention to the following portion of the document containing the grounds of detention:

The statements and documents which form the basis for the allegations made hereinabove, copies of which are enclosed, are as under:

1. Report dated 8th October, 1979 from the Sector Commander, BSF Camp, Khavda.

2. Panchnama dated 8th October, 1979 drawn by the Customs Officers of Khavda.

3. Your statement dated 9th October, 1979 recorded by the Customs Officers.

4. Statement dated 9th October, 1979 of Yakub Sumar Jat. On going through the all relevant materials and documents produced by the Sponsoring Authority, the State Government has decided to detain you;

The submission is that the documents enumerated above being part of the 'grounds' were furnished to the detenu, who acknowledged the receipt of the grounds.

3. Whether the statement and documents were furnished to the detenu or not is a question of fact. It appears from what has been quoted above that the copies of the statements and documents which formed the basis of the allegations purported to have been made enclosures.

The High Court has examined this very contention raised before it. It has examined the affidavit filed by Mr. P.M. Shah, Deputy Secretary to the Government of Gujarat on the point, the endorsement made by the detenu by way of acknowledgment of the grounds of detention, and finds as follows:

Therefore, what has been stated in paragraph 8 of the affidavit of Mr. P.M. Shah, solemnly affirmed on 30th April, 1980 when it is read in light of what the Circle Police Inspector has stated in his endorsement militates against the acceptance of the general statement made by Mr. P.M. Shah in the other part of that affidavit that the documents upon which the grounds of detention were founded were served upon the detenu were (1) the grounds of detention, (2) the detention order and (3) the committal order and nothing more. Since, in our opinion, the documents upon which the grounds of detention were founded were not served upon the detenu, he did not have an effective opportunity to make a representation to the State Government against his detention.

Although the first sentence of the quotation is not clear, the second sentence is clear. The purport of the finding of the High Court is that although the grounds as such, of detention, were supplied to the detenu, the documents enumerated in the document containing the 'grounds' and which were purported to be enclosed were not supplied to the detenu. This being a pure finding of fact, cannot be interfered with in an appeal by special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

4. This appeal has no force and is dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //