Detention Order under COFEPOSA ACT cannot be quashed merely for delay in Execution

Harmeet Singh Vs Union of India (High Court of Delhi)

Detention order under COFEPOSA ACT cannot be quashed merely for delay in Execution

It cannot be concluded that the livelink between the prejudicial activity in which the petitioner was found involved on 1-2.02.2019 and the purpose and object of detention, when the detention order was passed on 05.06.2020, was broken. Mere passage of time between the date of the prejudicial activity and the date on which the detention order came to be passed – when the said passage of time has been sufficiently explained by the respondents, cannot lead to the definite conclusion with regard to the snapping of the nexus between the two.

Agarwal has sought to rely upon the judgement of Sumita Dev Bhatacharya (supra) where this court had proceeded to quash the Detention Order on the ground of gross delay in passing of the Detention Order, since the delay remained to be unexplained from the counter affidavit and submission of the Respondent Authorities. There cannot be any hard and fast rule in relation to the time period within which the order of detention should necessarily be passed from the date of discovery of the continued involvement of the detenue in the prejudicial activity. Each case would have to be examined on its own merits – both in relation to the involvement of the detenue/ proposed detenue, its nature and scale, the period for which the detenue/proposed detenue is involved in the prejudicial activity, and the explanation furnished by authorities concerned for the time lapse between the date of the discovery of prejudicial activity and the date of the passing of the Detention Order. A perusal of paragraph 58 of the decision in Sumita Dev Bhatacharya (supra) shows that the Court found that in that case, the respondents were “blissfully silent with regard to the delay in passing the order of detention………”. That cannot be said about the present case. If the case of the respondents is to be accepted – and we have no reason to reject the same at this stage in these proceedings, the petitioner is a part of the same group/ syndicate which consists of his brothers and others, who are involved in smuggling of goods from overseas. According to the respondents, the seizure made from the petitioner and his associates on 1­2.02.2019 was valued at over Rs.1.09 crores. The respondents have also stated on record that the petitioner is a habitual offender. He had been arrested by the Officers of the DRI on 03.09.2016 while attempting to smuggle foreign currency out of India equivalent to Rs. 1.86 Crores. He was granted bail subject to conditions. He had threatened the Investigating Officer and bail was cancelled by the Court. In the adjudication proceedings, currency amounting to Rs. 37,32,450/- was confiscated absolutely and penalty was imposed upon the petitioner and his brother. Prosecution has already been filed in that case, booked by DRI on 07.08.2020. When one looks at the fact that the petitioner was found to be involved in similar prejudicial activity, in the year 2016, and again in February, 2019, that is over a period of three years, there is no reason to assume that the petitioner would not indulge in similar activity after his involvement discovered in February, 2019. This also shows that the petitioner is habituated and a hardened violator of laws relating to customs.

The petitioner also cannot take shelter of the argument regarding the time lapse between the detention order passed against his brother Mr. Gaganjot Singh, and the detention order passed against himself. The brother of the petitioner is purported to be the kingpin of the smuggling ring which allegedly caused immense economic loss to the country. The CSC and the Detaining Authority found the evidence against him to be sufficient to proceed against him in 2019 itself, which resulted in the passing of the Detention Order dated 11.03.19 against him. To justify the preventive detention of the petitioner in the assessment of the Detaining Authority, the Respondents had to collect evidence against the present petitioner, including recovering the relevant data from his mobile phone instrument, which took considerable time for reasons attributable primarily to the petitioner himself.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.