9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Delay in serving the order of detention leading to challenges in the maintainability of the order. Analysis: The judgment by the High Court of Bombay involved a challenge to an order of detention issued by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. The detention order was passed on August 31, 1989, but was served on January 29, 1990, leading to a significant delay in execution. The grounds of detention were based on the detenu's involvement in unauthorized purchase and sale of foreign exchange. The detenu's wife challenged the order of detention on the grounds of delay in serving the order. The detenu's counsel argued that the delay in serving the order of detention was fatal to its maintainability. The counsel pointed out that the order was served after a considerable length of time from its passing date, which raised questions about the effectiveness of the detention order. The Joint Secretary to the Government of India claimed in the return that efforts were made to apprehend the detenu, who was allegedly absconding. However, the court found no substantial evidence to support this claim. The detenu's counsel highlighted instances where the detenu was not present in court during bail extension applications, indicating that the authorities failed to execute the detention order promptly. The court, after considering the arguments presented, found merit in the detenu's submission regarding the delay in serving the order of detention. The court held that the efficacy of the detention order was lost due to the considerable delay in its execution. As the purpose of the detention order is to prevent prejudicial activity in the near future, executing the order after a substantial delay was deemed impermissible. Consequently, the court quashed the order of detention and directed the immediate release of the detenu. In conclusion, the High Court of Bombay ruled in favor of the petitioner, emphasizing that the delay in serving the detention order rendered it ineffective and unsustainable. The judgment highlighted the importance of timely execution of detention orders to achieve their intended purpose of preventing prejudicial activities related to foreign exchange.
|
