UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHERversusVASANBHARTHI AND OTHERS

                         U.0.1. v. VASANBHARTHI [PANDIAN, J.I                 743

\

 r       had sufficient knowledge about his detention by virtue of the mittimus
         issued as well the place of detention. The High Court was, therefore, not
         justified in setting aside the order. [7450-E)
                                                                                     A



                2. The matter is remitted to the High Court for consideration of
         the other contentions raised by the detenu. He shall not be taken into
         custody to serve the unexpired period of detention till the matter is       B
         finally disposed of. [74SF-G)

              CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
         No. 750 of 1989.

              From the Judgment and Order dated 11.4.1988 of the Gujarat High
         Court in Sp!. Application No. 733 of 1987.                                  c
             Kapil Sibal, Additional Solicitor General, A. Sobba Rao and P.
         Parmeshwaran for the Appellants.

               Vineet Kumar and M.N. Shroff for the Respondents.                     D

               The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

                S. RATNA VEL PANDIAN, J. This criminal appeal preferred by
         the appellants, namely, Union of India and the Additional Secretary
         to the Government of India is against the judgment of the High Court        E
         of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Special Criminal Application No. 733 of
         1987 dated 11.4.1988 quashing the order of detention dated 19.6.1987
         passed by the second appellant in exercise of the powers under sub-
         section (1) of Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and
)'   .   Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 with a view to preventing
I        the first respondent, Vasanbharthi Jivanbharthi from engaging in            F
         transporting smuggled goods. It seems that the first respondent
         (detenu) has challenged the detention on numerous grounds. one of
         which being that none of the members of his household had been
         informed of the passing of the impugned order of detention and of the
         fact that the detenu had been taken into custody and also of the place
         where the detenu was detained. This ground was only subsequently            G
         added by an amendment with the permission of the Court. The High
1        Court holding that the detenu's relatives were not informed about the
         detention order or about the place where the detenu was detained in
         compliance with the observation by this Court in A.K. Roy v. Union of
         India, [1982) I SCC 271, concluded that the order has been vitiated by
         such non-compliance. Further, the High Court has rejected the plea of       H
     744                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [1990] I S.C.R.

     the appellants that the relatives of the detenu knew about the deten-
A    tion order as well the place of detention and stated as follows:

                   "Hence if the relatives of the detenu have not been
                   informed and even if from the record, it is found that the
                   relatives had come to know about it from some source, the
B                  order of detention would most certainly be invalidated."

          In the result, the order of detention was quashed and the detenu
                                                                                   l
     was directed to be set as liberty.

           Mr. Kapil Sibal, the learned Additional Solicitor General has
     assailed the finding of the High Court stating that the respondent No.
C    1 (detenu) was already an undertrial prisoner and his relatives inclu-
     sive of his maternal uncle had visited him at the jail within two days
     and, therefore, that the non-communication of a written intimation
     about the fact of passing of the order of detention and of the place of
     detention 'in pursuance of the detention order have no significance, and
D    as such the observation 111ade in A.K. Roy's case can hardly by availed
     of by the detenu and the order cannot said to be invalidated on that
     ground. This plea is taken specifically in paragraph 2 I and in Grounds
     I & II in paragraph 23 of the Special Leave Petition. Besides the above
     stand taken in the SLP, the appellants have reiterated the same in
     paragraph 9 of the application for ex-parte stay of the Order -of the
I!   High Court, the relevant portion of which reads thus:

                  "The affidavit in opposition was filed on behalf of the
                  Union of India that the detenu was already under trial
                  prisoner and his relatives in fact knew that and also that the
                  maternal uncle had immediately, within two days, visited
F                 him at the jail. Therefore, it was not necessary to inform
                  the relatives of his detention and place of detention, as
                  contemplated in the decision of the Supreme Court
                  reported in A.LR. 1982 SC 710 (A.K. Roy's case)."

           No counter is filed by the first respondent (detenu) in opposition
0    to the above plea of the appellants.

          In the above background, we shall now examine whether the                {'
     High Court is justified in setting aside the Order for the reasons
     mentioned supra on the basis of the decision in A.K. Roy's case

H            The relevant portion of the observation in A.K. Roy's case reads
     thus:
                U.0.1. v. VASANBHARTHI [PANDIAN, J.]                745

           "In order that the procedure attendent upon detentions
                                                                           A
           should conform to the mandate of Article 21 in the matter
           of fairness, justness and reasonableness, we consider it
           imperative that immediately after a person is taken in
           custody in pursuance of an order of detention, the
           members of his household, preferably the parent, the child
           or the spouse, must be informed in writing of the passing of    B
           the order of detention and of the fact that the. detenu has
           been taken in custody. Intimation must also be given as to
           the place of detention, including the place where the
           detenu is transferred from time to time.

      The object and purpose of the above observation, in our view,
seem to be that the family members of the detenu should not be kept in     c
darkness by withholdirig the information about the passing of the
order of detention and the place of detention thereby preventing them
from having any access and from rendering any help or assistance to
the detenu and similarly the detenu should not be deprived of the
privilege of meeting their relations and getting any help or assistance.   D

      Coming to the present case, we are satisfied that the family
members had sufficient knowledge about the detention of the detenu
by virtue of the mittimus issued as well the place of detention. There-
fore, no legitimate grievance can be made that there is contravention
to the observation in A.K. Roy's case.                                     E

      Hence for the reasons mentioned above, we are unable to agree
with the view taken by the High Court and accordingly we set aside
the impugned Judgment and remit the matter to the High Court of
Gujarat for consideration of the other contentions raised by the
detenu challenging the order of detention and to dispose of1he case on     F
its merit. We hope that the High Court will give priority to this matter
and dispose of the same expeditiously.

     Taking into consideration of the fact that the detenu is now
enlarged consequent upon the judgment of the High Court which we
have set aside, the detenu shall not be taken into custody to serve the    G
unexpired period of detention till the matter is finally disposed of by
the High Court.

      The Criminal Appeal is disposed of accordingly.

P.S.S.                                                  Appeal allowed.    H