Legal detention orders remain valid despite execution delays caused by the evasion conduct of the detained individual.

JUDGMENT :

MANOJ JAIN, J

1. A Detention order[Under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange & Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act 1974 (in short COFEPOSA)] against Sayyed Hussain Madar @ Chand (since deceased) was passed way back on 02.05.2005 and the present writ petition has been filed by his widow praying therein that such detention order be quashed.

2. This case has chequered history.

3. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) had information that one sea-faring vessel would be entering into Indian customs waters carrying approximately 700 metric tonnes of smuggled diesel oil of foreign origin, which would be offloaded in several barges and then would be carried to coast. Pursuant thereto, on 21.12.2004, DRI officials spotted vessel by the name of M.T. AL SHAHABA which was found carrying High Speed Diesel (HSD)/Marine Gas Oil being brought from Muscat, Sultanate of Oman into Indian waters, illegally. Sayyed Hussain Madar @ Chand (hereinafter referred to as Detenu) was also found present on said vessel. It was learnt that he was the one who had also arranged for the barges and tow boats for the purposes of smuggling of said oil. Thus, it came to fore that huge quantity of the diesel oil was being smuggled with no import documents. The entire such diesel totalling 770.00 C.MTR weighing 635.556 metric tonnes, valued at more than Rs. 2.30 crores, was seized on 21.12.2004 under the provision of Customs Act 1962.

4. Statement of detenu was also recorded under Section 108 of Customs Act, 1962.

5. All the crew members of the barges and two tow boats and officers/crew members of said Vessel AI Shahaba, in their voluntary statements recorded under Section 108 of Customs Act, 1962, also confirmed the activity of unloading the diesel oil from the mother vessel AI Shahaba into the barges.

6. In connection with the aforesaid seizure, residential premises of one Bobby Chully as well as of detenu were raided. On the basis of said seizure and the material collected during the investigation, it came to fore that the detenu was involved in activities which amounted to smuggling as defined under Section 2(39) of the Customs Act, 1962.

7. Detenu was arrested under Section 104 of the Customs Act, 1962 on 23.12.2004 and was produced before the concerned Court at Mumbai. Admittedly, he was released on bail on 09.02.2005 in said case.

8. Since detenu was having the potentiality and propensity of indulging in smuggling activities in future, taking into account the gravity of the matter and the organized manner in which the detenu had been conducting prejudicial activities, the abovesaid detention order was passed on 02.05.2005, with a view to prevent him smuggling goods in future.

9. Such order was eventually served upon him on 23.08.2006.

10. Detenu filed writ petition before this Court in the year 2006 itself which was registered as W.P. (Crl.) 2459/2006.

11. It will be worthwhile to mention here that his such writ petition was dismissed on 16.08.2007 and the petitioner was permitted to withdraw the same with liberty to raise the issue again in case any proceedings under Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (SAFEMA) was initiated against him. It will be appropriate to reproduce the above order dated 16.08.2007 which reads as under:-

“We are informed by the counsel for the petitioner that the one year period of detention will expire on 22^nd August, 2007 i.e. only six days are left.

The petitioner/detenu has raised several issues I the writ petition challenging the order of