2003 (3) TMI 725 - SC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order of detention under COFEPOSA on grounds of delay in execution.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a petition under Art.32 seeking the quashing of the order of detention dated 23-10-2001 passed by the Government of Tamil Nadu under S.3(1)(i) of the COFEPOSA. The order was modified on 9-4-2002 due to the petitioner's surrender before the Magistrate and subsequent remand to Central Prison, Chennai. The petitioner was apprehended on 22-8-2001 for attempting to smuggle foreign currency and was arrested on 24-8-2001. Despite being released on bail on 30-8-2001, he was arrested again on 3-4-2002 due to the withdrawal of a surety. The petitioner challenged the orders primarily on the ground of delay in execution of the detention order, alleging that the detaining authority was not serious. The detaining authority contended that the delay was due to the petitioner absconding and evading arrest.

The Supreme Court noted that the detention order was executed on 9-4-2002, almost 3 1/2 months after it was passed on 23-10-2001. The State of Tamil Nadu claimed in its affidavit that the petitioner was absconding, leading to the delay. However, the Court found the explanation provided by the State to be general and vague, lacking specific details of efforts made to execute the order between the mentioned dates. The Court highlighted that no application was made to cancel bail or prevent the petitioner's exemption from personal appearance during the period of delay, indicating a lack of serious efforts by the authorities. Consequently, the Court concluded that the respondents failed to offer a satisfactory explanation for the delay, suggesting a lack of seriousness in detaining the petitioner under COFEPOSA.

Based on the inadequate explanation for the delay in executing the detention order and the lack of serious efforts by the authorities, the Supreme Court quashed the order of detention dated 23-10-2001, as amended on 9-4-2002. The petitioner was directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case. The writ petition was allowed accordingly.