Back
GAURI GODSE, REVATI MOHITE DERE
Abdul Rasheed – Appellant
Versus
Enforcement Directorate Zonal Office – Respondent
JUDGMENT/ORDER
GAURI GODSE, J. - This petition is filed challenging the detention order dated 17 th May 1993 passed by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, in the exercise of powers conferred under sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention Of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (' COFEPOSA Act' ) for detaining the petitioner. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 24 th May 2023, passed by respondent no.2-The Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, in the exercise of the powers conferred by Sec. 8(f) of the COFEPOSA Act for confirming the detention order dtd. 17/5/1993 and directing detention of the petitioner for one year from the date of his detention, i.e. 28/2/2023.
2. Perusal of the detention order indicates that the detaining authority has relied upon the search and seizure proceedings under Sec. 34 of the Foreign Exchange Act 1973 ('FERA') and the statements recorded under Sec. 40 of FERA after one Umar Ibrahim Mohamad alias Mohd. Sharif Hasan was apprehended at Mumbai airport on 20/11/1992, when he was leaving for Dubai with substan
Preventive detention orders must be executed promptly and in accordance with procedural requirements; unreasonable delays in execution can invalidate such orders.
Unexplained delays in executing detention orders undermine their validity, establishing the need for a timely link between grounds for detention and execution.
Illegally smuggling of gold - Detention order confirmed - Interim order not to execute order of detention was obtained and lapse of time live link was snapped - No live link between prejudicial activ....
Section 7 of the COFEPOSA Act may be beneficially quoted - Powers in relation to absconding persons If the appropriate Government has reason to believe that a person in respect of whom a detention or....
The court reaffirmed that unexplained delays in preventive detention orders can sever the essential link between the alleged activities and the need for detention.
The non-supply of documents along with the detention order violates the detenu's constitutional right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution, and no proceedings c....
The court's jurisdiction to review preventive detention orders pre-execution is limited, particularly when the proposed detenue is absconding, as allowing such challenges undermines the purpose of pr....
The detaining authority must provide a reasonable and satisfactory explanation for any delay in executing a detention order, and the detaining authority should be made aware of all relevant facts and....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
