9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Challenge to detention order u/s 3(1) of COFEPOSA Act, Delay in executing detention order.
Challenge to detention order u/s 3(1) of COFEPOSA Act: The petitioner challenged the detention order passed by the detaining authority u/s 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act, alleging that the delay in executing the order vitiated the subjective satisfaction of the authority. The petitioner contended that despite being available at his office and residence, the authorities delayed the execution for nearly 40 days, rendering the apprehensions of the detaining authority regarding future activities as punitive. The detaining authority, in response, denied the petitioner's availability and stated that the order was executed promptly upon the petitioner's appearance before the Enforcement Officer. Delay in executing detention order: The detaining authority explained the delay in executing the detention order by stating that the petitioner was not available at known addresses, contrary to the petitioner's claim of being present at his office and residence. The petitioner's appearance before the Metropolitan Magistrate in the same case was acknowledged, highlighting the lack of diligence in serving the detention order promptly. The Court emphasized the necessity for the detaining authority to satisfactorily explain any inordinate delay in executing detention orders to prevent the vitiation of subjective satisfaction. In this case, the Court found the delay of 40 days without a satisfactory explanation to be unreasonable, leading to the quashing of the detention order and ordering the detenu's immediate release if not required in any other criminal case. Judgment: The Supreme Court allowed the Criminal Writ Petition, quashing the detention order dated February 25, 1999, and ordering the immediate release of the detenu if not needed in any other criminal case.
|
