Detention Order Invalidated for Failure to Forward Representation to Advisory Board

The Supreme Court found that the failure to forward the detenu's pending representation to the Advisory Board rendered the detention order constitutionally invalid. As a result, the Court set aside the judgment and orders, annulled the detention and confirmation orders, and directed the detenu's release if not wanted in any other case. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the detention orders dated 27.05.2014 and 13.06.2014 under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974.
2. The requirement for the Central Government to forward a pending representation to the Advisory Board.
3. The validity of the second detention order dated 13.06.2014 in the presence of the first order dated 27.05.2014.
4. Consideration of exculpatory evidence not taken into account by the detaining authority.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Detention Orders:
The Supreme Court examined the validity of the detention orders dated 27.05.2014 and 13.06.2014 under Sections 3(1)(i) and 3(1)(iii) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. The detenu was initially arrested on 08.03.2014 for smuggling 44.659 kilograms of gold and was later released on bail, which was subsequently canceled. The Court directed the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence to complete the investigation expeditiously. The detenu surrendered on 11.06.2014, and the detention orders were served on him on 16.06.2014. The Court noted that the detaining authority passed these orders to prevent the detenu from smuggling goods in the future.

2. Requirement to Forward Representation to the Advisory Board:
The detenu submitted a representation on 08.07.2014, which was pending with the Central Government when the matter was remitted to the Advisory Board on 18.07.2014. The representation was rejected on 21.07.2014 during the pendency of the proceedings before the Advisory Board. The Court emphasized that the Central Government must forward any pending representation to the Advisory Board for its effective consideration, as mandated by precedents in Jayanarayan Sukul vs. State of West Bengal and K.M. Abdulla Kunhi and B.L. Abdul Khader vs. Union of India & Ors. The failure to forward the representation to the Advisory Board rendered the detention constitutionally invalid.

3. Validity of the Second Detention Order:
The appellant contended that the second detention order dated 13.06.2014 was impermissible in the presence of the first order dated 27.05.2014, making the detention unlawful. The Court noted that there was no indication that the second order superseded the first, and both orders existed simultaneously, citing different grounds for detention.

4. Consideration of Exculpatory Evidence:
The appellant argued that the detaining authority failed to consider a letter dated 05.06.2012, which exonerated the detenu from the charges forming the basis of the detention order. The Court observed that several communications subsequent to 27.05.2014 were considered by the detaining authority, but this exculpatory letter was not.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the failure of the Central Government to forward the pending representation to the Advisory Board vitiated the detention order. The Court set aside the impugned judgment and order, annulled the detention and confirmation orders, and directed the detenu to be set at liberty if not wanted in any other case. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.

---