9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the detention order under COFEPOSA Act. 2. Delay in passing the detention order. 3. Delay in executing the detention order. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the detention order under COFEPOSA Act: The petitioner challenged the detention order dated 29-7-1984 under Section 3 of the COFEPOSA Act and sought a writ of habeas corpus for his release. The detention was based on the recovery of smuggled Chinese gold from two individuals, who, during interrogation, implicated the petitioner as the financier and owner of the seized gold. The petitioner argued that the detaining authority did not consider all relevant materials, including the fact that he was granted anticipatory bail and had executed bail bonds. The court, however, found that the detaining authority had sufficient material to be satisfied about the necessity of passing the detention order. The statements of the apprehended persons, corroborated by independent witnesses, established the petitioner's involvement in smuggling activities. The court distinguished the petitioner's case from precedents cited by the petitioner, noting that the facts and circumstances were different and did not indicate non-application of mind by the detaining authority. 2. Delay in passing the detention order: The petitioner contended that the delay of 7 1/2 months between the incident (8th/9th February 1984) and the detention order (29-9-1984) rendered the order illegal. The court examined the explanation provided by the State, which detailed the investigation process, including the interrogation of multiple individuals and verification of statements. The court found the delay to be satisfactorily explained, noting that the investigation required thorough verification across different locations. The court emphasized that the passage of time was not due to any laches on the part of the authorities but was a result of detailed consideration of facts. Therefore, the delay did not invalidate the detention order. 3. Delay in executing the detention order: The petitioner argued that the detention order, executed after more than three years (on 21-11-1987), had lapsed its force. The State countered that the petitioner was absconding and evading detention, which necessitated the delay. The court noted that the petitioner was concealing himself to avoid the service of the detention order, making himself liable to proceedings under Sections 82, 83, 84, and 85 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The State had reported the matter to the Chief Judicial Magistrate and issued a notification under Section 7(1)(b) of the COFEPOSA Act. The court found that the delay in execution was adequately explained and was due to the petitioner's recalcitrant conduct. Citing the precedent in Bhawarlal Ganeshmalji v. State of Tamil Nadu, the court held that the delay did not sever the "live and proximate link" between the incident and the detention order. The court concluded that the detention order remained valid despite the delay in execution. Conclusion: The court dismissed the petition, upholding the legality of the detention order under the COFEPOSA Act. The explanations for the delays in passing and executing the detention order were found satisfactory, and the petitioner's arguments were overruled. The application for quashing the detention order was rejected.
|
