9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to the legality of detention order under COFEPOSA based on delay in passing and executing the order, and discrepancy in the period of acquaintance with a key individual. Analysis: 1. The appeal was filed challenging the detention order passed against the detenu under COFEPOSA. The detenu was accused of involvement in illegal remittances of foreign exchange. The detention order was challenged on the grounds of unreasonable delay in passing and executing the order, raising doubts about the genuineness of the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. 2. The first contention raised was regarding the delay of 6-1/2 months in passing the detention order from the date of recording the detenu's statement, and a further delay of two months in executing the order. The appellant argued that this delay severed the link between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention. However, the respondent explained the delay by stating that voluminous documents were collected, and statements of bank managers were recorded, justifying the time taken for passing the order. 3. The second contention focused on a discrepancy in the period of acquaintance between the detenu and a key individual mentioned in the detention order. While the grounds of detention stated a two-year acquaintance, the respondent's affidavit mentioned a four-year period of involvement in FERA infractions. The explanation provided clarified that the longer period referred to FERA infractions specifically, not the duration of acquaintance, and did not impact the validity of the order. 4. The court rejected the contentions raised by the appellant, emphasizing that the delay in passing and executing the order was reasonable considering the volume of documents involved. The court also found the discrepancy in the period of acquaintance to be unsubstantiated, upholding the validity of the detention order. The appeal and the related writ petition were dismissed for lacking merit.
|
