TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court upholds preventive detention under COFEPOSA Act citing compelling reasons. Delay in representation minimal. Only relevant documents needed.</h1> <h3>RADHAKRISHNAN PRABHAKARAN Versus STATE OF TN.</h3> The Court upheld the preventive detention of the petitioner under the COFEPOSA Act, ruling that there were compelling reasons for detention based on the ... - Issues involved: Preventive detention u/s 3(1)(i) of COFEPOSA Act, delay in disposing of representation, non-supply of documents, compelling reasons for preventive detention.The petitioner, a law graduate, was preventively detained u/s 3(1)(i) of the COFEPOSA Act for carrying electronic goods worth Rs. 16 lakhs. He challenged the detention order u/s 32 of the Constitution, citing delay in disposing of his representation, non-supply of certain documents, and lack of compelling reasons for detention.Regarding the delay in disposing of the representation, the Central Government explained that the delay was minimal and not unreasonable, as the representation was processed promptly after receipt. The Court found the explanation satisfactory and not constituting unreasonable delay.On the issue of non-supply of documents, the Court clarified that only documents relied upon by the detaining authority need to be supplied. The absence of certain documents, including a counter filed by the Customs Department, was deemed not crucial for the detention order as they were not considered by the detaining authority.The Court examined the grounds for preventive detention, considering the petitioner's background, previous travel history, collection of foreign exchange, and possession of electronic goods. It concluded that there were compelling reasons for the preventive detention based on the circumstances presented.Ultimately, the Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the preventive detention of the petitioner under the COFEPOSA Act.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
