TMI Blog2000 (9) TMI 1000X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me the nexus between the object for which the husband of the respondent is sought to be detained and the circumstances in which he was ordered to be detained has snapped. However, we make it clear that if those circumstances did not exist, then it would be appropriate for the Government to revoke the order of detention and, if still certain circumstances as apprehended in the order of detention exist, it will be open to the Government to enforce the same - 783 of 2000 - - - Dated:- 13-9-2000 - S. RAJENDRA BABU AND D.P. MOHAPATRA, JJ. JUDGMENT Leave granted. Harinder Pal Singh Shergill, the husband of respondent No. 1, was arrested on 3.8.1998 by the Customs Authorities on the suspicion that he was in possession of foreign curre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etition filed before the High Court even before the said Shergill was apprehended by the concerned authorities. In the High Court on behalf of the appellants two preliminary contentions were raised one, as to the jurisdiction of the court and, other that it was a predetention case and, therefore, the court should not interfere with the same. The appellants also referred to various decisions on this aspect of the matter. The High Court held against the appellants in both the points. However, in the view we propose to take in the matter, we consider it unnecessary to consider the preliminary questions raised in the case. We turn now to the merits of the matter. The High Court noticed that Section 3 of the COFEPOSA Act is a very drastic prov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this Court is of the opinion that the impugned detention order, Annexure P-7 with the grounds of detention, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and has to be quashed and I order accordingly. The High Court has virtually decided the matter as if it was sitting in appeal on the order passed by the detaining authority. Action by way of preventive detention is largely based on suspicion and the court is not an appropriate forum to investigate the question whether the circumstances of suspicion exist warranting the restraint on a person. The language of Section 3 clearly indicates that the responsibility for making a detention order rests upon the detaining authority who alone is entrusted with the duty in that regard and it will be a serio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d and the actual detention not being effected till today, the nexus thereto has snapped and in the light of the decision of this Court in Sunil Fulchand Shah v. Union of India Ors., 2000 (3) SCC 409, it would not be appropriate for this Court to direct detention of the husband of the respondent now. A bench of Five Judges of this Court examined this matter and majority of Judges held that a detenu need not be sent back to undergo the remaining period of detention after a long lapse of time when even the maximum prescribed period intended in the order of detention has expired, unless there is still a proximate nexus between the period of detention prescribed when the detenu was required to be detained and the date when the detenu is requir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
