1982 (5) TMI 185 - SC - Indian Laws

Validity of COFEPOSA detention upheld; no undue delay or illegality found. Authority's evaluation deemed sufficient.

ASHOK NARAIN Versus UOI.

ASHOK NARAIN Versus UOI. - 1982 AIR 1222, 1982 (2) SCC 437, 1982 (1) SCALE 45 Issues involved: Validity of detention order under COFEPOSA, delay in launching prosecution, legality of detention based on passage of time.Validity of detention order under COFEPOSA: The Enforcement Directorate apprehended an individual in connection with illegal foreign exchange operations. Subsequently, an order of detention under the COFEPOSA was made by the Additional Secretary to the Government of India. The detenu filed a writ petition challenging the detention order, arguing that no prosecution had been initiated against him despite the initial apprehension being in February 1981 and the detention order being made in October 1981. The detenu's counsel contended that the delay in prosecution and detention order indicated no apprehension of the detenu engaging in activities prejudicial to foreign exchange augmentation. However, the court found that the detaining authority thoroughly examined the matter at various levels, applied their mind satisfactorily, and considered the passage of time before making the detention order. It was concluded that there was no undue delay or illegality in the detention order, as the decision was based on a detailed consideration of the facts and circumstances involved.Delay in launching prosecution: The detenu's counsel argued that the delay in launching prosecution, coupled with the time gap between apprehension and detention order, undermined the claim that the detention was necessary to prevent activities prejudicial to foreign exchange augmentation. Despite the acknowledgment that the prosecution status was irrelevant to the detention order's validity, the counsel contended that the delay and circumstances exposed the lack of necessity for the detention. However, the court held that the detaining authority had considered the passage of time and thoroughly evaluated the need for detention based on the available material. It was determined that the delay was not due to negligence but was a result of a detailed assessment by the concerned departments. The court found no illegality or tardiness in the detention process, rejecting the argument that the detention was unnecessary due to the delay in prosecution.Legality of detention based on passage of time: The court examined the original files related to the detention order to ensure there was no undue or unnecessary delay in making the decision. It was observed that the detaining authority had fully considered the facts and circumstances before ordering the detention under the COFEPOSA. The court noted that the detaining authority had also evaluated whether the passage of time had rendered the detention unnecessary. After reviewing the files, it was concluded that the detention was not illegal, and there was no indication of tardiness or unlawfulness in the detention process. The petition challenging the detention order was ultimately rejected by the court.