Holding

A one‑week delay in transmitting some materials, a reasonably explained delay in disposing of a single representation, and the omission of a non‑essential document do not vitiate the COFEPOSA detention order.

Summary

The appellant, D. Anuradha, challenged the preventive detention of her husband under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, alleging procedural violations. She contended that the reference to the COFEPOSA Advisory Board was made after the statutory five‑week period because some material papers were sent a week late, that a representation filed in Tamil was not forwarded to the Board and was disposed of after a 119‑day delay, and that certain documents were omitted from the detaining authority’s consideration. The Supreme Court held that a one‑week delay in transmitting materials does not vitiate the reference, that the explained delay in disposing of the Tamil representation does not invalidate the detention, and that omission of a single ground or document does not render the entire order illegal. The Court further observed that the grounds of detention are severable and that the detenue was not a Non‑Resident Indian, so COFEPOSA applied. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the detention order upheld.

Issues considered

Whether a delay of one week in sending material papers to the COFEPOSA Advisory Board beyond the five‑week statutory period invalidates the reference and the detention order.
Whether failure to forward a representation (in a regional language) to the Advisory Board and its 119‑day disposal violates Article 22 and warrants setting aside the detention.
Whether omission of certain documents from the detaining authority’s consideration vitiates the detention order.
Whether a vague or severable ground in a detention order can invalidate the entire order.
Whether the detenue’s claim of being a Non‑Resident Indian excludes him from the ambit of COFEPOSA.

Legislation cited

Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974s. 3(1), s. 8(b), s. 8(c)
Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973

Subjects

preventive detentionCOFEPOSAAdvisory BoardArticle 22procedural compliancerepresentation delayseverable groundsNRI statusforeign exchange violations

Judgment

A D.ANURADHA
v.
JOINT SECRETARY AND ANR.

APRIL 24, 2006

B [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND B.N. SRIKRISHNA, JJ.]

Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling
Activities Act, 1974----Sections 3(1) and 8(c):

c Reference to Advisory Board-Made within stipulated period-However,
all material papers sent to it a week after expiry of that period-Effect of-·
Held: It was not a case where all relevant materials were not before the
Advisory Board at the time it took its decision-Delay in sending the materials
was due t'J inadvertence and did not vitiate the reference-It was especially
D so, as the Advisory Board has eleven weeks from date of detention to give its
opinion, and is also empowered to call for any information from appropriate
Government--Constitution of India, 1950, Article 22.

Representations on behalf of detenue-One of them in regional language
and pending with authorities neither disposed by them within time nor sent to
E Advisory Board with reference-Effect of-Held: All representations were
considered in time except one in regional language whose delay in
consideration was explained by non-availability of its translated copy, and
was not so serious as to lead to setting aside of the detention order-Fact that
representation was not sent to the Advisory Board did not prejudice the detenue
F especially as all materials available with State Government were sent to it.

Detention order-Based on various grounds-Some materials not placed
before detaining authority-Effect of-Held: It would only affect one of the
grounds in detention order-Detention as a whole cannot be held to be illegal
as detention order would stand on its own on basis of other grounds-If there
G are severable grounds, vague nature of one ground would not vitiate entire
detention order.

Husband of appellant was detained under Section 3(1) of the
Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities
Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA). She challenged the order of detention in High
If 186
D. ANURADHA v. JOINT SECRETARY 187
Court by filing a Habeas Corpus Petition. High Court upheld the detention. A
Hence the present appeal.

Appellant contended that (i) though the reference to COFEPOSA.
Advisor,y .Board was made within.the stipulated period qf five weeks from
date of detention, all the material papers. were sent to it subsequ_ently, after
about ;i week of expiry of that period, therefore, for all practical purp9ses,. B
the reference was beyond the period to five weeks of detention and the
entire proceedings were vitiated; (ii) her representation to Government
against detention was not sent to the Advisory Board along with the
reference, (iii) this representation was disposed of after an inordinate
delay, thereby causing serious prejudice to detenue, which itself was C
sufficient to set aside the detention order, (iv) reply of a person, allegedly
an erstwhile Director of a Company in Singapore, to investigating
authority about receipt of money to make the detenue Director thereof,
and several other documents were received by sponsoring authority, but
not placed before detaining authority, thereby serious prejudice was
caused to the detenue. D
Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD: I. IHs true that it is a valuable right of the detenue to have
the validity of his detention .examined by the Advisory Board. It is
fundamental right of the detenue guaranteed under Article 22 of the E
Constitution. Any violation of the procedure is to be viewed seriously. But
the delay of only one week in sending some of the relevant records may
not by itself make the whole reference illegal and vitiated. Under. clause
(c) of Section 8 of COFEPOSA, a period of eleven weeks from the date of
the detention is given to the Advisory Board to give its opinion. The F
Advisory Board is also empowered to call for any information from the
appropriate Government. If the relevant materials were not placed before
the Advisory Board at the time it had taken the decision, that would have·
been a serious violation of the right guaranteed under ·Art. 22 of the
Constitution. The fact that merely because some of the materials were
inadvertently not sent along with the reference, will not vitiate the G
proceedings. [192-A-D]

lcchu Devi v. Union of India and Ors., [1980] 4 SCC 531-referred to.

2. All the representations filed on behalf of detenue were considered
in time, except one filed by his wife in Tamil language, which was disposed H
188 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. I S.CR.

A of with a delay of 119 days. The delay was caused mainly due to non-
availability of the translated copy of the representation. In the facts and
circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that there was inordinate delay
in disposing of the representation. It is true that if there is any serious
delay in disposal of the representation, the detention order is liable to be
B set aside. Nevertheless, it may be noticed that if the delay is reasonably
explained and that by itself is not sufficient to hold that the detenue was
bad and illegal. 1194-H; 195-A, B, q

K. Aruna Kumari v. Government of A.P. and Ors., [1988[ 1 SCC 296;
State of U.P. v. Zavad Zama Khan, [1984] 3 SCC 505; Union of India v. Paul
C Manickam and Anr., [2003] 8 SCC 342 and Mst. L.M.S. Ummu Saleema v.
B.S. Gujarat and Anr., [1981] 3 SCC 317, relied on.

B. Alamelu v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors., AIR (1995) SC 539; Jai
Prakash v. District Magistrate, Bulandshahar, U.P. and Ors., (1993] Supp 1
SCC 392; francis Coralie Mullin v. W.C. Khambra and Ors .. 1198012 SCC
-
0 275; Prabhakar Shankar Dhuri v. S. U. Pradhan, 119711 3 SCC 896(II); Kan ti
Lal Bose v. State of West Bengal, [ 19721 2 SCC 529 and Mst. l. M.S. Um mu
Sa/eema v. B.S. Gujarat and Anr., [1981[ 3 SCC 317, distinguished.

3. Five representations were sent on behalf of the detenue. whatever
materials avaiable with the State Government were sent to the Advisory
E Board and the representations were disposed of in time and the only one
representation sent by the appellant was pending with the authorities when
the reference was made. The non-placement of that representation did not
cause any prejudice to the detenue. (193-C, DI

4.1. The detention order itself is passed on various grounds and even
F if some materials are not placed before the detaining authority, it would
only affect one of the grounds stated in the detention order and the
detl~ntion order by itself is sufficient to stand on its own on the basis of
other grounds. The detention as a whole cannot be held to be illegal. If
there are severable grounds, the vague nature of one of the grounds would
G not vitiate entire detention order. (197-A, B]

4.2. Reply of person, allegedly an erstwhile Director of a Company
in Singapore, had stated that he is a lawyer in Singapore and that the
detenue had taken legal assistance and he was not obliged to reveal the
materials as they were confidential communications. Therefore, it is clear
H that this statement is of no consequence and the sponsoring authority
D. ANURADHA v. JOINT SECRETARY [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, J.] 189
rightly withheld the same as it was irrelevant. His statement did not divulge A
any details which would have affected the decision of detaining authority.
(196-G, H; 197-A, Fl

Ahmad Nassar v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1999J 8 SCC 473, relied on.

Ashadevi v. K. Shivraj, Chief Secy, to the Government ofGujarat (19791 B
1 SCC 222; Ayya v. State of UP. (1989) 1 SCC 374 and Sita Ram Somani v.
State of Rajasthan, [1986J 2 SCC 86, referred to.

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 178
of 1997.
c
From the Judgment and Order dated 27 .8.1996 of the High Court of
Judicature at Madras in H.C.P. No. 24011996.

B. Kumar, A, Jeenasenan, R. Rajarathinam, Assem Mehrotra and Abha
R. Sharma for the Appellant.
D
L.N. Rao, ASG C.V. Subba Rao, K.C. Sudharshan, B.K. Prasad and
V.K. Verma for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, J. This appeal is preferred against the E
judgment of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in a Habeas
Corpus Petition filed by the present appellant challenging the order of detention
passed by the authorities under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign
Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter
referred to as 'COFEPOSA Act'). The detention order was passed on 5.2.1996
and executed on 7.2.1996. The brief facts which are necessary to appreciate F
the contentions advanced by the appellant are as follows.

The detenue was born in Thanjavur district in Tamilnadu. He completed
his Plus Two education in 1981 and later joined the B.E. Course in an
Engineering College and completed the same in 1986. His father was a G
Government Servant working in a Local Administrative Department at Trichy.
During 1988-89, the detenue came to Madras and worked as a Trainee in
Madras Builders' Office. Later, he entered the field of real estate business
and came in contact with others in that business. A firm was formed in 1991
by name Mis. Emerald Promoters Pvt. Ltd. The detenue married the present
appellant in 1992. Apart from Mis. Emerald Promoters Pvt. Ltd., the detenue H
190 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A had an interest in some other financial concerns as well. The detenue was
also the proprietor of Mis. T.C.V. Engineering Pvt. Ltd. in Madras. In 1995,
the Enforcement Directorate received certain information that the detenue
was engaged in transactions in violation of the provisions of the Foreign
Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (hereinafter being referred to as "FERA").
B Notices were issued to the detenue under Section 40 of the FERA on 12. 7.1995,
15.7.1995, 3.8.1995, 17.10.1995 and 25.10.1995. According to the
Enforcement Directorate, the detenue evaded all these notices for about four
months and ultimately the detenue was examined and his statements were
recorded on various dates starting from 1.11.1995 to 31.1.1996. The
Enforcement Directorate alleged that a letter dated 4.8.1994 of the Barclays
C Bank, Sutton, UK, with a list attached thereto, indicated that 21 cheques
involving a total amount of US $ 1,04, 93.313 were deposited in the account
of M/s. Dipper Investments. Subsequently, some documents were recovered
by the Enforcement authorities which revealed that 13 cheques for US $
62,61,313 favouring M/s. Dipper Investment Ltd., were to be credited in
account no. 3001-8937 of the said company in Barclays Bank.
D
The detenue was questioned on his trips abroad to varied destinations
such as Singapore, Hong Kong, London, etc. He was also questioned regarding
his financial connection with Nainish Desai and one Ramachandran and also
one Mr. Rajoo of Malaysia about depositing one million Singapore Dollars
E with the company, by name Mis. Adventure Holding Pvt. Ltd., Singapore, so
as to make the detenue the Director of that Company in place of one N.C.
•
Rangesh. From the materials collected by the Enforcement Directorate, the
detaining authorities came to the conclusion that an order under Section 3( 1)
of the COFEPOSA Act is to be passed for preventive detention of the detenue.

p On behalf of the detenue, the present appellant raised several contentions
challenging the detention order. The Division Bench of the High Court rejected
all those contentions and held that the detention order was legal. One of the
contentions raised by the appellant was that the detenue was having the status
of an NRI and, therefore, he was beyond the reach of the provisions contained
in the COFEPOSA Act. This plea was elaborately considered by the High
G Court and rejected. The other contention raised by the appellant was that the
representation submitted on behalf of the detenue was not considered in time.
There was a delay in dealing with that representation and hence there was a
serious infraction of the valuable right of the detenue under Article 22 of the
Constitution. It was also argued that the COFEPOSA Advisory Board was
H not supplied with the materials as contemplated under Section 8 of the
D.ANURADHA v. JOINT SECRETARY [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, J.) 191

COFEPOSA Act and thus there was no proper reference to COFEPOSA A
Advisory Board. These pleas were also rejected by the Division Bench.

In the instant appeal before us, the main contention urged by the learned
senior Counsel Shri B. Kumar was that the relevant documents were not
forwarded to the Advisory Board within a period of five weeks, stipulated
under Section 8(b) of the COFEPOSA Act. It was urged that the representation B
addressed to the Joint Secretary was not placed before the Advisory Board
and the same should have been sent to the Advisory Board within a period
of five weeks from the date of reference. The reference had been made to the
Advisory Board on 22.2.1996 enclosing one set each of the Order of detention
along with the grounds of detention and other documents. The first meeting C
of the Advisory Board was scheduled on 22.3. I 996; but the referenc.e was not
considered on the said date. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended
that while making reference to the Advisory Board under Section 8(b ), the
entire documents were not sent to the Advisory'.Board. It was pointed out by
learned Counsel for the appellant that the dete[ltion. order was executed on
7.2.1996 and the period of five weeks from the date of execution would· D
expire on 14.3.1996, but all the relevant documents were sent to the Advisory
Board only on 23.3.1996. This, according to the appellant, is in gross violation
of Section 8 of the COFEPOSA Act.

As per Section 8(b) of the COFEPOSA Act 1974, the appropriate
Government, within a period of five weeks from the date of detention. of a .E
person, shall make a reference in respect thereof to". the Advisory Board
constituted under clause (a) of Section 8 to enable the Advisory Board to
make a report under sub-clause (a) of clause 4 of Article 42 of the Constitution.
Clause (c) of Section 8 of the Act further says that the Advisory Board, to
which a reference is made shall consider the materials placed before it and F
after calling for such further information as it may deem necessary from the
appropriate Government or from any person called for the purpose through
the appropriate Government, or from the person ·Concerned, shall give its
opinion as to whether or not there is sufficient cause for the detention of the
person concerned and submit the same within a period of 11 weeks from the
date of the detention of the person concerned. The. Advisory Board has also G
got the power to hear the cietenue in person for the purpose of arriving at
such opinion.

The contention of the appellant in this case is that though the reference
was made within the stipulated period of five weeks from the date of detention, H
192 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A all the material papers were sent to the Advisory Board only on 23.3.1996
whereas the statutory period of five weeks had already expired on 14.3.1996.
This, according to the appellant's learned Counsel, is illegal and, therefore,
for all practical purposes, the reference was beyond the period of five weeks
of detention and the entire proceedings are vitiated. We do not find much
B force in this contention. It is true that it is a valuable right of the detenue to
have the validity of his detention examined by the Advisory Board. It is a
fundamental right of the detenue guaranteed under Article 22 of the
Constitution. Any violation of the procedure is to be viewed seriously. But,
in our opinion, the delay of only one week in sending some of the relevant
records may not by itself make the whole reference illegal and vitiated.
C Under clause (c) of Section 8 of the COFEPOSA Act, a period of eleven
weeks from the date of the detention is given to the Advisory Board to give
its opinion. The Advisory Board is also empowered to call for any information
from the appropriate Government. If the relevant materials were not placed
before the Advisory Board at the time it had taken the decision, that would
have been a serious violation of the right guaranteed under Article 22 of the
D Constitution. The fact that merely because some of the materials were
inadvertently not sent along with the reference, will not vitiate the proceedings.

Strong reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in lcchu Devi
v. Union of India and Ors. (1980] 4 SCC 531. That is a case where the order
E of detention under Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act was served or. the
detenue on June 4, 1980 and when the detenue was arrested on May 27, 1980
he was given the grounds of detention. The grounds of detention referred to
several documents and statements and the detenue demanded for copies of
the documents, statements and other materials. It was only in July 11, 1980
that the copies were supplied but still copies of some other records were not
F given. There was a delay of one month in the supply of copies of document.

In the fact situation of the above case, this Court held that the burden
of showing that the detention is in accordance with the procedure established
by law is always on the detaining authority in view of the clear and explicit
terms of Article 22 of the Constitution. It was also held that the right to be
G supplied \:Opies of the documents, statements and other materials relied upon
in the grounds of dt:tention without any undue delay flows directly as a
necessary corollary from the right conferred on the detenue to be afforded the
earliest opportunity of making a representation against the detention and
unless the former right is available, the latter cannot be meaningfully exercised.
H The learned Counsel for the appellant also contended that the representation
D. ANURADHA v. JOINT SECRETARY [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, J.] 193
~·
submitted on behalf of the detenue was not placed before the Advisory Board A
and, therefore, it had no occasion to consider this material before giving its
opinion. It was contended that the appellant had submitted the representation
on 22.2.1996 and the Ministry had admitted that the same was received on
~ 25.2.1996. When the reference was made on 23.3.1996, neither a copy of the
representation was sent to the Advisory Board nor any decision was taken
on the representation. It was urged by the appellant's learned Counsel that
B
the representation was rejected belatedly and the Advisory Board did not
have the advantage of considering the representation. This plea is also
devoid of any force. Firstly, this is one of the five representations sent on
behalf of the detenue. On 22.2.1996, appellant, the wife of the detenue sent
a representation in Tamil and on 24.2.1996 and 26.2.1996 on behalf of detenue, c
two representations were sent by S. Ramachander Rao, the senior Advocate
to th~ Central Government. The detenue also sent two other representations,
•• one on 27th February in Tamil and another on 16th March, 1996. Whatever
materials available with the State Government were sent to the Advisory
Board and the representations were disposed of in time and the only
representation sent by the appellant on 22.2.1996 was pending with the D
authorities when the reference was made. We do not think that the non-
placement of that representation had caused any prejudice to. the detenue.

...._ Yet another serious contention urged by the apR_ellant's learned Counsel

-- is that the representation sent by the appellant, the wife of the detenue, to
the detaining authority was disposed of after a delay of 119 days. It was
pointed out that the representation was received by the Ministry on 25.2.1996
and the same was sent for translation on 27 .2.1996 as the representation was
E

in Tamil language. The translated copies did not come within a period of three
months and it reached COFEPOSA Section on 3 .6.1996 and on 6.6.1996 para-
wise comments were sought and the representation was rejected only on F
26.6.1996. This according to the appellant's learned Counsel caused serious
prejudice to the detenue and this inordinate delay by itself is sufficient to set
aside the detention order.

Reference was made to various decisions. In B. Alamelu v. State of
Tamil Nadu.and Ors., AIR (1995) SC 539, there was a delay of 84 days in G
forwarding a copy of the representation to the Central Government and that
was held to be in violation of the procedure and the detention was held to
be illegal. That is a case where the wife of the detenue sent a representation
addressed to the Superintendent of the Central Prison where the detenue was
- .
kept in prison. In the representation, it was specifically stated that it should
H
194 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A be sent to the persons mentioned in the grounds of detention. The
..
Superintendent of the Central Prison did not send a copy of the same to the

-
Central Government in time and there was a delay of 84 days in sending the
same to the Central Government. That was held to be a serious violation of
the right guaranteed under Article 22 of the Constitution.

B Similar view was taken in Jai Prakash v. District Magistrate,
Bulandshahar. U.P. and Ors., [1993) Supp. I SCC 392. That was a case where
the Jail Superintendent did not send the representation to the Central
Government though sufficient copies were served on it. The Jail Superintendent
had sent the representation only to the State Government.

c In Francis Coralie Mullin v. WC. Khambra and Ors., [1980] 2 SCC 275,
this Court held that (I) the detaining authority must provide the detenue a
very early opportunity to make a representation; (2) the detaining authority
must consider representation as early as possible and this preferably must be
before the representation is forwarded to the Advisory Board; (3) the
D representation must be forwarded to the Advisory Board before the Board
makes its report; and (4) the consideration by the detaining authority of the
representation must be entirely independent of the hearing by the Board or
its report, expedition being essential at every stage. In this case reference was
also made to Prabhakar Shankar Dhuri v. S. <J. Pradhan. [ 1971] 3 SCC 896(II)

E
and Kanti Lal Bose v. State of West Bengal, (1972) 2 SCC 529 and in these
two cases, delay of 16 days and 28 days respectively in disposing the
representation of the detenue was held to vitiate the detention.
-
The learned Counsel for the appellant also relied on Mst. L.M S. Ummu
Saleema v. Shri B.B. Gujarat and Anr.. [1981] 3 SCC 317 and contended that
F the detaining authority was under an obligation to adequately explain each
day's delay and the representation made by the detenue has to be considered
by the detaining authority with utmost expedition.

On a survey of the various authorities, it is clear that the representation,
if any, submitted on behalf of the detenue shall receive immediate attention
G and that the same shall be considered by the appropriate authorities as
expeditiously as possible. Any delay would naturally cause prejudice to the
detenue.
....

In the instant case, as already noticed, the detenue himself filed two
representations and on his behalf, his Counsel submitted another two
H representations and there is no allegation that these representations were not
D.ANURADHAv. JOINT SECRETARY [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN,J.] 195
considered in time. But the representation filed by the present appellant, the A
wife of the detenue was disposed of only with a delay of I 19 days. The delay
was caused mainly due to non-availability of the translated copy of the
representation. The representation was made in "Tamil" and it is submitted
by the Union Government that it took about three months to get a proper
translation of the representation and as soon as the translation was received,
the authorities took urgent steps and it was disposed of within a short period. B
In the facts and ·circumstances of the case, we do not think that there was
inordinate delay in disposing of the representation.

It is true that this court in series of decisions has held that if there is
any serious delay in disposal of the representation, the detention order is C
liable to be set aside. Nevertheless, it may be noticed that if the delay is
reasonably explained and that by itself is not sufficient to hold that the
detenue was bad and illegal. In Smt. K. Aruna Kumari v. Government of A.P.
& Ors., (1988] I SCC 296 relying on State of UP. v. Zavad l.ama Khan, [1984]
3 SCC 505 this Court held that there is no right in favour of the detenue to
get his successive representations based on the same grounds rejected earlier D
to be formally disposed of again and also pointed out that in any event no
period of limitation is fixed for disposal of an application.

In Union of India v. Paul Manickam & Anr., [2003] 8 SCC 342 this Court
deprecated the practice· of sending representations to various authorities
which were not direetly or immediately concerned with the detention, and E
delay, if any, in dispo~ing of such representations shall not be taken advantage
of by the detenue. In the present case also, all the representations were not
addressed to the concerned authorities.

As regards delay in disposing of the representation, this Court, as early F
as I 981 observed in Um mu Saleema case (supra) that there cannot be any
fixed time and the delay, if any, in disposal of the representation is to be
considered vis-a-vis any prejudice that may be caused to the detenue. In Para
7 of the said judgment the following observations were made:-

· "Another submission of the learned counsel was that there was G
. considerable delay in the disposal of the representation by the
detaining authority and this was sufficient to vitiate the detention .
. The learned counsel submitted that the detaining authority was under
. an obligation to·adequately explain each day's delay and our attention
was invited to the decisions in Pritam Nath Hoon v. Union of India
and in Shanker Raju Shelty v. Union of India. We do not doubt that H
196 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A the representation made by the detenue has to be considered by the
detaining authority with the utmost expedition but as observed by
one of us in Frances Coralie Mullin v. W.C. Khambra "the time
imperative can never be absolute or obsessive". The occasional
observations made by this Court that each day's delay in dealing with
the representation must be adequately explained are meant to emphasise
B the expedition with which the representation must be considered and
not that it is a magical formula, the slightest breach of which must
result in the release of the detenu. Law deals with the facts of life. In
law, as in life, there are no invariable absolutes. Neither life nor law
can be reduced to mere but despotic formulae."
c Considering the entire facts, we do not think that in this case the
detention is liable to be quashed on the ground that one out of the five
representations was not disposed of in time. The delay has been satisfactorily
explained and the failure to get the translated copy of the representation was
an unavoidable delay. We do emphasise that such delays should be avoided.
D
The contention raised by the appellant's learned Counsel is that some
of the relevant materials were not placed before the detaining authority and
the omission to place those materials before the detaining authority had
caused serious prejudice to the detenue. It was urged that the investigating
authorities had collected the materials and once these materials were received
E by the sponsoring authority, they had no right to edit and decide which
materials were relevant and they were bound to send the entire materials to
the detaining authority. The learned Counsel for the appellant drew our
attention to some of the relevant documents which were not placed before
the detaining authority. This contention was elaborately considered by the
F Division bench and it was held that all relevant materials were placed before
the detaining authority.

The contention of the appellant is that the reply of N.C. Rangesh and
several other documents were not placed before the detaining authority and
the satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority was incorrect and the
G detention was illegal. It was contended that the sponsoring authority did not
place the statements of N.C. Rangesh and another Rajoo which are relevant
and vital documents, in passing of the detention order. It may be noted that
in the reply of N.C. Rangesh, he has stated that he is a lawyer in Singapore
and that the detenue had taken legal assistance and that he was not obliged
H to reveal the materials as they were confidential communications. Therefore,
D. ANURADHA v. JOINT SECRETARY [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, J.] 197

it is clear that the statement ofN.C. Rangesh was of no consequence and the A
sponsoring authority rightly withheld the same as it was irrelevant. Moreover,
the detention order itself is passed on various grounds and even if some
materi~ls are not placed therefore the detaining authority, it would only affect
one of the grounds stated in the detention order and the detention order by
itself is sufficient to stand on its own on the basis of other grounds. The B
detention as a whole cannot be held to be illegal.· If there are severable
grounds, the vague nature of one of the grounds would not vitiate the entire
detention order.

In Ahmad Nassar v. State of Tami/ Nadu, [1999] 8 SCC 473, referring to
the cases of Ashadevi v. K. Shivraj, Addi. Chief Secy. to the Govt. of Gujarat, C
[1979] l SCC 222; Ayya v. State of UP. [1989] 1 SCC 374 and Sita Ram Somani
v. State of Rajas than, [I 986] 2 SCC 86, this Court held:

"A man is to be detained in the prison based on the subjective
satisfaction of the detaining authority. Every conceivable material
which is relevant and vital which may have a bearing on the issue D
should be placed before the detaining authority. The sponsoring
authority should not keep it back, based on his interpretation that it
would not be of any help to a prospective detenue. The decision is
not to be made by the sponsoring authority. The law on the subject
is well settled; a detention order vitiates if any relevant document is E
not placed before the detaining authority which reasonably could
effect his decision."

In the instant case, the statement of Rangesh did not divulge any
details which would have in any way affected the decision of the detaining
authority. F
The learned Counsel for the appellant lastly contended that since the
detention order was passed only in February 1996, that is, after about two
years of the alleged involvement of the detenue for violation of the provisions
of FERA on the basis of stale materials, the same was illegal. The allegations G
made against the detenue are of serious nature. It involved several crores of
rupees. The various transactions had been done in a clandestine manner with
the help of foreign nationals and the detenue himself had claimed to be a Non-
Resident Indian. All these materials had contributed to the delay and the
detaining authority had to consider these materials and cross-check the
transactions. It was submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that H
the detention order was not passed on stale materials.
198 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A The learned Counsel for the appellant had urged before the High Comt
that the detenue was a non-resident Indian and, therefore, the detention order
could not have been passed against him. This contention was elaborately
considered in point no. I in the impugned judgment and it was held that the
detenue was not a Non-resident Indian. No materials have been placed before
B us to prove that he was a Non-resident Indian and therefore beyond the ken
of the provisions of COFEPOSA Act. The order of detention was rightly
passed and we find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment.

The criminal appeal is without any merits and is accordingly dismissed.

vs. Appeal dismissed.