9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 1366X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Activities Act, 1974. There was a direction to place him under detention forthwith. The translated copies of the documents and the order were also furnished to him in the language known to him that is, in Malayalam. Thereafter, he was taken into custody on 10-8-2019. Thereafter, the instant petition was filed. 2. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner primarily contends that there is a huge delay in the arrest of the detenu. The detention order was passed on 21-2-2019 and he was arrested on 10-8-2019. There is no explanation offered by the respondents for the said delay. 3. Reliance is placed on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manju Ramesh Nahar v. Union of India and Others reported in (1999) 4 SCC 116, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the petition be dismissed. 6. Heard Learned Counsels. 7. It is undisputed that subsequent to the order of detention passed on 21-2-2019 the detenu was arrested on 10-8-2019. Section 7 of the COFEPOSA Act prescribes the procedure to be followed by the authorities when the detenu absconds or conceals himself. Section 7 reads as following :- "7. Powers in relation to absconding persons. - (1) If the appropriate Government has reason to believe that a person in respect of whom a detention order has been made has absconded or is concealing himself so that the order cannot be executed, the government may - (a) make a report in writing of the fact to a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Magistrate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entive detention the detenu requires to be arrested forthwith. If not, the procedure under Section 7 of the COFEPOSA Act requires to be complied with. They have failed to do so. The contention of the Learned Government Advocate runs contrary to the facts of the case. Therefore, such a contention cannot be accepted. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Judgment in the case of Manju Ramesh Nahar v. Union of India and Others reported in (1999) 4 SCC 166, have clearly stated that when the respondents have not furnished the information in detail of any steps to execute the order of preventive detention, the detention itself becomes illegal. That if persons who are responsible for execution of the order sleep over the order and do not execut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he further detention of the detenu becomes illegal. 10. The further reliance by the respondent - State is on the Judgment in the case of Bhawarlal Ganeshmalji v. State of Tamil Nadu and Another. reported (1979) 1 SCC 465. This also is in favour of the detenu. In that case also, the accused was found to be absconding. However, action was taken pursuant to Section 7 of the said Act. He was proclaimed as a person absconding under Section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The proclamation was published and a reward was announced. However, in this case nothing seems to have been done. The provisions of Section 7 have not been followed. There is no effort made by the State. Even the reasoning assigned by them cannot be accepted. It cannot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
