SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
O. CHINNAPPA REDDY, A.P. SEN AND BAHARUL ISLAM, JJ.
Rajendra Prashad, Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and another. Respondents.
Criminal Appeal No. 536 of 1981
Decided on 28-7-1981.
Customs Act - Order of detention – Smuggling activity - High Court of Allahabad dismissing an application for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus - Some electronic goods of foreign origin were seized from the shop of the appellant in the course of a raid - Seizure was communicated to the Government on August 8, 1980 - Government made an order of detention under COFEPOSA - Held, No apprehension in mind of the detaining authority that the appellant would indulge in future in any smuggling activity - We are unable to agree with the submission of Shri Dave - Seizure of electronic goods from the shop of the appellant is not so remote in point of time as to be brushed aside - In the circumstances, we are not prepared to go behind the order of detention - Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT:— This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad dismissing an application for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus.
2. On February 4, 1980 some electronic goods of foreign origin were seized from the shop of the appellant in the course of a raid. The seizure was communicated to the Government on August 8, 1980. The Government made an order of detention under COFEPOSA on September 19, 1980.
3. In this appeal Shri Vimal Dave, learned counsel for the appellant, argues that no activity was alleged against the appellant from February 4, 1980. until September 24, 1980 when he was arrested and that circumstance coupled with the fact that proceedings under the Customs Act were pending against the appellant made it abundantly clear that there could be no apprehension in the mind of the detaining authority that the appellant would indulge in future in any smuggling activity. We are unable to agree with the submission of Shri Dave. The seizure of electronic goods from the shop of the appellant is not so remote in point of time as to be brushed aside. In the circumstances, we are not prepared to go behind the order of detention The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
For Citation : AIR 1982 SC 1222
Vikas Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.