Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2020 (10) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (10) TMI 185 - HC - CustomsRelease of detenue - Smuggling - electronic goods - whether delay in passing the detention order would vitiate the detention order? - HELD THAT:- There is nothing on record to indicate the steps taken or the efforts made by the executing authority to execute the order of detention between the period from March 3, 2020 to June 8, 2020. The executing authority has only stated that they visited the address mentioned in the detention order on February 25, 2020 and March 3, 2020 when they found the premises have been demolished for construction of SRA project. Further, they stated that they visited the mobile shop of the petitioner’s brother on these two dates viz. February 25, 2020 and March 3, 2020 when they found the shop to be closed. Except for this no material is produced on the basis of which it can be said that the police authorities made reasonable efforts to locate the petitioner and apprehend him and yet they were not successful in finding him out - In the facts of the present case, it is not possible for us to accept the bare and vague contention of the executing authority that the detenu had absconded in the absence of bringing materials on record about efforts made to trace out the detenu during the period from March 3, 2020 to May 28, 2020. For the period from March 3, 2020 upto May 28, 2020, we find no serious efforts were made by the police authorities to apprehend the detenu and no materials are placed on record to indicate the steps taken. It is not stated where they looked for him and what inquiries were made by the police authorities to find his whereabouts. No materials are produced on the basis of which it can be said that the police authorities had made reasonable efforts to locate the petitioner and apprehend him and yet they were not successful in finding him out. Thus, this delay in execution of the detention order remains unexplained. The unreasonable delay in executing the order creates a serious doubt regarding the genuineness of the Detaining Authority as regards the immediate necessity of detaining the petitioner in order to prevent him from carrying on the prejudicial activity referred to in the grounds of detention. Hence, the inevitable conclusion would be that the Respondents were not serious in detaining the Petitioner under the preventive law of COFEPOSA. The detention order is set aside - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.
|