Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

STATE OF U.P. versus SHAKEEL AHMED

Decided
28 November 1995
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, S.B. MAJMUDAR (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 737 · 1995 INSC 797

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Though the respondent has been served, he does not appear either in person or through counsel. Notice is sufficient.

p. 738, margin A

Leave granted.

p. 738, margin B

The respondent was detained on July 31, 1989 under Section 3 (l)(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. 2029of1990 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 placed 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.

p. 738, margin B

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

p. 738, margin E

The appeal is accordingly disposed of. T.N.A. Appeal disposed of.

p. 738, margin F