9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to legality of detention order under Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. Detailed Analysis: 1. The petitioner challenged the legality of the detention order passed by the Administrator of the Union Territory of Delhi under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. The order was based on preventing the petitioner from smuggling goods into India and engaging in related activities. The petitioner was detained in Central Jail Tihar, Delhi, and the grounds of detention were served on him after the order was passed. 2. The grounds of detention mentioned the involvement of the petitioner in a smuggling operation where contraband goods were being brought into India through the Central Warehousing Corporation, Gurgaon Road, New Delhi. Specific intelligence indicated the petitioner's connivance with other smugglers and customs officers. Goods were seized, arrests were made, and investigations revealed the petitioner's previous involvement in similar activities. 3. A member of the smuggling gang admitted to previous illegal activities facilitated by the petitioner, who was an Inspector of Customs. The petitioner was suspended from service, and legal proceedings were initiated against him before the detention order was passed. 4. The petitioner's counsel argued that the delay in passing the detention order after the investigations were completed violated the petitioner's fundamental rights. The petitioner also claimed that the non-supply of relevant documents hindered his ability to make an effective representation against the detention. 5. The court found the delay in passing the detention order unexplained and unjustified. The official record did not provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay of several months between the completion of investigations and the passing of the detention order. The court emphasized the importance of promptly dealing with cases involving preventive detention. 6. The court referred to a previous judgment to support its decision to quash the detention order due to the unexplained delay. The court held that the detenu should have been detained promptly after the completion of investigations, and the detaining authority failed to justify the delay in this case. 7. Consequently, the court quashed the detention order, making the rule absolute. The petitioner was directed to be released unless there was another valid order for detention in place. The judgment highlighted the importance of timely and justified preventive detention in cases involving smuggling activities.
|
