9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of detention order despite exoneration in adjudication proceedings. 2. Delay in execution of the detention order and its impact on the validity of the detention. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Detention Order Despite Exoneration in Adjudication Proceedings: The petitioner challenged the detention order dated 27th August 1998, arguing that since the detenu was exonerated in adjudication proceedings, the detention order was unnecessary. The petitioner's counsel, Mr. Kantawalla, relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Sadhu Roy v. State of West Bengal, which discussed the impact of discharge by a criminal court on the validity of a detention order. The Supreme Court held that discharge or acquittal by a criminal court is not necessarily a bar to preventive detention on the same facts unless the discharge is based on the charge being false or baseless, which could indicate a mala fide or colorable exercise of power. In contrast, the respondent's counsel, Mr. Agrawal, cited an unreported judgment of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Afzal Haroon Khan v. The Union of India, which relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Union of India v. Venkateshan S. The judgment clarified that COFEPOSA Act and FEMA occupy different fields, and preventive detention under COFEPOSA is a precautionary measure, independent of adjudication proceedings under FEMA. The Division Bench ruled that exoneration in adjudication proceedings does not nullify the power of detention, as the objectives and purposes of both proceedings are different. The court concluded that the exoneration in adjudication proceedings did not invalidate the detention order, as both proceedings serve different purposes. Therefore, the petitioner's contention was rejected. 2. Delay in Execution of the Detention Order and Its Impact on the Validity of the Detention: The petitioner argued that the seven-year delay between the detention order (27th August 1998) and its execution (23rd November 2005) severed the live-link between the detenu's activities and the detention order, rendering the detention illegal. The respondent's counsel countered that the delay was due to the detenu absconding, and multiple attempts were made to apprehend him, as evidenced by the affidavit of Police Inspector Maruti G. Telang, detailing efforts from 19th September 1998 to 20th April 1999. The court noted that a proclamation under section 7(1)(b) of the COFEPOSA Act was issued on 29th October 1998, and the detenu continued to evade arrest for six years. The court referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Bhawarlal Ganeshmalji v. The State of Tamil Nadu, which held that delay due to the detenu's absconding does not sever the live-link but strengthens it. The court also addressed judgments cited by the petitioner, including those from the Madhya Pradesh High Court and Kerala High Court, which were found inapplicable as they did not involve situations where the detenu was absconding. The court concluded that the delay in executing the detention order was adequately explained by the detenu's absconding, and the live-link was not severed. Conclusion: The court dismissed the petition, ruling that exoneration in adjudication proceedings does not invalidate a detention order under COFEPOSA, and the delay in execution was justified due to the detenu's absconding. The petition was dismissed, and the rule was discharged.
|
