4 In T Devaki v Government of Tamil Nadu, a Bench of this Court has held that since the legislation does number require the detaining authority to specify the period for which a detenue is required to be detained, the order of detention is number rendered invalid or illegal in the absence of such specification.
In Suna Ullah Butt v. State of Jammu Kashmir 1973 3 SCC 60 1973 SCC Cri 138 1973 1 SCR 870 , validity of detention order made under Jammu and Kashmir Preventive Detention Act, 1964 was under challenge on the ground that the State Government while companyfirming the detention order under Section 12 of the Act had failed to specify the period of detention.
This Court held thus This Court has companysistently taken the view that an order of detention is number rendered illegal merely because it does number specify the period of detention.
A Constitution Bench of this Court in Ujagar Singh v. State of Punjab 1952 3 SCR 756 AIR 1952 SC 350 1953 Cri LJ 146 , while companysidering validity of detention order made under Section 3 of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 held that number specification of any definite 3 2010 3 MWN Cr.
42 DB 4 1990 2 SCC 456 period in a detention order made under Section 3 of the Act was number a material omission rendering the order invalid.
Dr D Y CHANDRACHUD, J. 1 The High Court has set aside an order of detention issued under Section 3 1 ii of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act 19741 on the ground that the period of detention was number specified.
