9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (9) TMI 1000X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mumbai, on 4.8.1998 who remanded him to judicial custody till 10.8.1998. Thereafter, the said Shergill was granted bail on 14.8.1998 by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai. Subsequently, on 17.11.1998 application filed by the appellants for cancellation of the bail in respect of the said Shergill was dismissed. On the same date appellant No. 2 passed an order directing the detention of the said Shergill in the custody of the Central Prison, Nasik and the grounds accompanying the said order indicated that the same was made under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short COFEPOSA Act) on the basis that with a view to preventing him from smuggling of goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder the Customs Act are still pending. The High Court further observed as follows :- It is not the case of the Union of India that the husband of the petitioner earlier had been taking out the currency to the foreign lands. Whether for a solitary act, even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments as correct, would it be proper on the part of the U.O.I. to invoke the provisions of Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act. In this view of this Court, it may not be worthwhile as it defeats the very object of the Act which is preventive in nature. If the husband of the petitioner has committed a substantive offence, that offence should be tried by a competent court of jurisdiction but if in the adjudication proceedings, the husband of the petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Government in order to see whether they are relevant to the object which the legislation has in view, that is, to prevent the detenu from engaging in smuggling activity. The said satisfaction is subjective in nature and such a satisfaction, if based on relevant grounds, cannot be stated to be invalid. The concerned authorities have to take note of the various facts including the fact that this was a solitary incident in the case of the detenu and that he had been granted bail earlier in respect of which the application for cancellation of the same was made but was rejected by the court. In this case, there has been due application of mind by the concerned authority to that aspect of the matter as we have indicated in the course of narration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntion has also not expired, the detenu may be sent back to undergo the balance period of detention. Therefore, in the present case, what we have to look is whether any long period has lapsed as it has happened in Sunil Fulchand Shahs case (supra) wherein the petitioner was directed to be detained for a period of one year with effect from 4.7.1986 and the said period of one year expired on 3.7.1987 and the matter was taken upon for hearing only on 16.2.2000. In the circumstance, when the period of detention itself had expired 13 years earlier, then this Court came to the conclusion as aforesaid. However, this is not the position in the present case at all. Husband of the respondent evaded arrest as is obvious and obtained an interim order fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
