Bombay HC Seeks Explanation for Delay in Execution of Order Under COFEPOSA

Must Read

Calcutta High Court Rejects the Petition Challenging the Bid’s Rejection Filed on Seeking Condonation of Delay Due to Pandemic Interventions in Absence of Satisfactory...

Case: Shiba Prosad Banerjee vs The State of West Bengal and others The Hon’ble Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya of Calcutta...

Calcutta High Court Reiterated the Scope of the Grounds for Exercising Its Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction.

Case: Shreya Beria vs Vedant Bhagat The Calcutta HC on 20th January 2021, dismissed the criminal revision filed by...

Gujarat High Court Allows a Family Suit to Be Transferred From Family Court, Surat to the Family Court, Bhavnagar

The Court directed that in light of the circumstances of the present case, the application of the applicant- wife...

Telangana HC Grants Two Days to Convey the Decision of Appropriate Notification and Counselling to the Higher Secondary Department

Excerpt In Telangana Republican Party Trp vs The State Of Telangana, on 18 January 2021, Telangana High Court directed the...

Telangana HC: Applications Have to Be Made Through Online Web Portal “Dharani” for Mutation of Names

Excerpt In P. Manohar Reddy vs The State Of Telangana And 3 Others, on 18 January 2021, Telangana High Court...

Follow us

A division bench of Bombay High Court consisting of Justice S.S. Shinde and M.S. Karnik passed an order on 1st October 2020 in the case of Suresh Gulabchand Jaiswal v. Union of India & Others in which the court interpreted the aspect of delay in execution of order under Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA)

FACTS OF THE CASE

The petitioner, along with others, was travelling to Mumbai from Hong Kong via New Delhi on 3rd September. On 4th September, they were caught by the custom officials on the ground of smuggling laptops, mobiles and other electronic gadgets. The authorities seized the items under section 111 of Customs Act. The petitioner, along with other accused, was presented before the judicial magistrate on 9th September. The magistrate sent him to judicial custody for 14 days. On 6th November, he was released by Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on bail. However, authorities subsequently detained him under COFEPOSA to prevent him from smuggling in India as it was believed that he was a part of a cartel which was involved in smuggling goods in India. 

ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

The counsel for the petitioner submitted before the court the following arguments:

  1. There was inordinate delay by the authority to pass the detention order. 
  2. The petitioner was released on 6th November 2019. The order of detention was passed on 21st February, and the same was executed on 2nd July 2020. Hence there is an inordinate unexplainable delay by the authority. The court relied on SMF Sultan Abdul Kader vs Joint Secretary to Government of India and others.
  3. The order which was passed on 14th February that there is an apprehension that the petitioner may again smuggle the goods does not hold ground because after that the government imposed a lockdown and international commercial flights were also not allowed. Hence the “live and proximate link that must exist between the past conduct of a person and the imperative need to detain him” does not exist here. The court upheld the principle in Sama Aruna vs State of Telangana and another

ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

The counsel for the respondent submitted before the court the following arguments:

  1. There was no inordinate delay in passing the order of detention. 
  2. The detaining authority applied its full mind to arrive at the subjective satisfaction that there is an apprehension of the crime being committed again. 
  3. If there was an inordinate delay, then the reason was that the petitioner was absconding and hence he is solely liable for such delay. The argument was based on the case, Union of India and others vs Muneesh SunejaLicil Antony vs State of Kerala & Anr.

CONSIDERATION BY COURT

The court gave the following observations:

  1. In the Muneesh Suneja case, the apex court held that if the authorities can explain the reason for the delay, then the detention order is valid. 
  2. The argument of the petitioner that the international flights are not being allowed during the pandemic cannot be sustained as the flights were permitted on specific routes and no complete restriction was there.
  3. Mere delay in execution of order won’t vitiate the trial and the same was held in KPM Basheer Vs. State of Karnataka and Anr.
  4. There was nothing on record to prove that the authorities took reasonable steps in executing the detention order. 

DECISION OF THE COURT

The court held that since the authorities were not able to explain the delay in execution of the detention order satisfactorily, the petitioner would be released from the preventive detention. 


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Calcutta High Court Rejects the Petition Challenging the Bid’s Rejection Filed on Seeking Condonation of Delay Due to Pandemic Interventions in Absence of Satisfactory...

Case: Shiba Prosad Banerjee vs The State of West Bengal and others The Hon’ble Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya of Calcutta High Court on 22nd January...

Calcutta High Court Reiterated the Scope of the Grounds for Exercising Its Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction.

Case: Shreya Beria vs Vedant Bhagat The Calcutta HC on 20th January 2021, dismissed the criminal revision filed by the Petitioners (wife) challenging the...

Calcutta High Court: Deceased’s Wife Has the Sole Right Over His Preserved Sperm; Father Doesn’t Have Any Fundamental Right Over Son’s Progeny Without the...

Case: Asok Kumar Chatterjee vs. The Union of India & Ors. The Calcutta High Court dismissed the petition by the Petitioner (father) on 19th...

Gujarat High Court Allows a Family Suit to Be Transferred From Family Court, Surat to the Family Court, Bhavnagar

The Court directed that in light of the circumstances of the present case, the application of the applicant- wife to transfer the case from...

Telangana HC Grants Two Days to Convey the Decision of Appropriate Notification and Counselling to the Higher Secondary Department

Excerpt In Telangana Republican Party Trp vs The State Of Telangana, on 18 January 2021, Telangana High Court directed the Higher Education Department for passing...

Telangana HC: Applications Have to Be Made Through Online Web Portal “Dharani” for Mutation of Names

Excerpt In P. Manohar Reddy vs The State Of Telangana And 3 Others, on 18 January 2021, Telangana High Court directed that one has to...

Indonesian Spa Therapist Approaches Supreme Court Regarding Illegal Detention Followed by Raid at the Spa

An Indonesian spa therapist has moved to Supreme Court, whilst challenging an HC order which provided relief to the police inspector who was involved in the illegal detention of the spa therapist in a woman’s home which was followed by a police raid at the spa.

Questions of Forgery, Tampering Not Capable of Summary Adjudication Under Article 226 in Delhi High Court’s Jee Marks Case

Questions of fraud, forgery, and tampering require elaborate evidence as per the ruling of the Delhi High Court making it incapable of summary adjudication...

Supreme Court: Urgent and Immediate Reforms Needed in the Legal Education Due To Mushrooming of Law Schools

The Supreme Court, on Saturday, said that there is an urgent need for reforming the legal education in the country as its quality is being affected due to the ‘mushrooming’ of Law Colleges.

Delhi High Court Ruled Disclosure of Interest in Information Sought Under Rti Act Necessary to Establish Bonafides of Applicant

The Delhi HC opined that disclosure of the interest of information is necessary for the information sought under the RTI Act for establishing bonafide...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -