9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Detention under COFEPOSA Act - Delay in consideration of representation - Violation of Article 22(5) - Grounds of detention not supplied - Suppression of material documents. Analysis: The petitioner was detained under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, to prevent abetting smuggling. The detention order was based on the recovery of Indian currency from another individual's baggage, implicating the petitioner in smuggling activities. The petitioner and another individual were arrested, and the petitioner's representation against detention was considered with delays. The petitioner alleged that his representation was not placed before the Advisory Board, violating his rights under Article 22(5). Additionally, the petitioner claimed that the detaining authority failed to consider his representation before forwarding the case to the Advisory Board, leading to an unexplained delay in the process. The detaining authority explained the timeline of considering the petitioner's representation, stating that it was forwarded promptly but faced delays due to holidays and official tours. The court emphasized the constitutional imperative of promptly considering a detenu's representation, as personal liberty is at stake. The court noted an unexplained delay in the detaining authority's actions, particularly between receiving the representation and sending it for comments, as well as during the officer's absence. The court found the explanations inadequate and criticized the authority's indifference and lethargy in handling the representation. Ultimately, the court held that the delay in considering the petitioner's representation violated his rights under Article 22(5) and vitiated the detention order. The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, quashing the detention and ordering their immediate release unless required in another case. The judgment focused on the significant delay in considering the representation, highlighting the importance of timely review in safeguarding a detenu's rights. The court's decision underscored the constitutional obligation to promptly address representations in detention cases to uphold individual liberties.
|
