TMI Blog1999 (11) TMI 865X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... action on the basis of the material produced before him opined that with a view to preventing the petitioner in future from acting in any manner prejudicially to the Conservation of Foreign Exchange it is necessary to make order of detention under Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act. 2. The enforcement authorities attached to the Enforcement Directorate Chennai and Madurai on March 17, 1998 searched the business and residential premises of the petitioner and seized some incriminating documents from those premises under the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (for short FERA). The petitioner's statement was also recorded on 17.3.98 wherein he alleged to have admitted commission of offence under the COFEPOSA Act. The p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... olitan Magistrate on February 25, 1999 and March 25, 1999 when his case was listed before him. Despite the availability of the petitioner as indicated above the detaining authorities took no steps to execute the order. It is because of this delay in executing the order, it is stated that apprehension entertained by detaining authority as regards the likelihood of future activities of the petitioner being prejudicial under the COFEPOSA Act were neither real nor genuine and therefore the impugned order is nothing but a punitive. This inordinate delay and unreasonable delay in executing the detention order has vitiated the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. 5. In reply to these averments the detaining authority in its affid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passed on detenu's petition for relaxation of conditions of bail, the petitioner was required to appear before the Enforcement Officer, Chennai on the 1st and 15th day of every month, but the petitioner/detenu did not appear on either of the date and it was only on 5th April, 1999, when he appeared before the Enforcement Officer the Detention Order was executed. In view of the foregoing submissions there is no inordinate or unexplained delay in the execution of the order of detention. 8. The Detaining Authority vide its supplementary affidavit has corrected the mistake in its earlier affidavit to the effect that the petitioner might have appeared in different case. It is now admitted position that the petitioner appeared before the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ention to the decisions of this Court in 1. 1992(2) SC 295 (K.P.M. Basier v. State of Karnataka and Anr. and 2. (Smfsultan Abdul Kader v. Jt. Secretary to Government of India and Ors.) 11. There is catena of judgments on this topic rendered by this Court wherein this Court emphasised that the detaining authority must explain satisfactorily the inordinate delay in executing the detention order otherwise the subjective satisfaction gets vitiated. Since the law is well settled in this behalf we do not propose to refer to other judgments which were brought to our notice. 12. As indicated earlier the only explanation given by the detaining authority as regards the delay of 40 days in executing the detention order is that despite their effo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
