9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (3) TMI 658X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), under which Ramesh Nahar, husband of the appellant was detained, was challenged before the Bombay High Court in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution but the petition was dismissed on 23.12.1998. It is this judgment which is challenged in this appeal. 3. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. 4. Mr. R.K. Jain, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has contended that though the order of detention was passed on 3.2.1997, it was executed after more than a year on 23.4.1998 without there being any explanation for the delay in executing the order. This delay, it is submitted, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exchange or with a view to preventing him from smuggling activities specified therein or harbouring persons engaged in smuggling activities, an order directing that such person be detained. The action under this Section can be taken only on 'satisfaction'. The further requirement is that the order should have been passed for preventing that person from carrying on the prejudicial activities. This implies that as soon as the Govt. or its officer feels satisfied that an order under this Section is necessary, it has to be passed and implemented forthwith so that the prejudicial activities carried on by the person against whom the order has been passed, may be stopped immediately or at the earliest. 8. This object can be achieved if ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the light of the above principles, it would to noticed that in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents in this case, the delay in execution of the order has been explained as under: Further in spite of efforts made by the Sponsoring Authority and the Police Officials of the P.C.B., Mumbai, the detenu would not be apprehended as he was absconding. Finally the detenu was apprehended and the Detention Order was served on 23.4.1998 13. Except making a vague allegation that the appellant was absconding and was apprehended on 23.4.1998 when the order was executed against him, the respondents have not given details of any steps that might have been taken in the meantime to execute the order against Ramesh Nahar. They could hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
