1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Supreme Court Quashes Detention Order Due to Delay in Execution</h1> The Supreme Court allowed the Criminal Writ Petition, quashing the detention order under the COFEPOSA Act due to a delay of 40 days in execution without a ... - Issues involved: Challenge to detention order u/s 3(1) of COFEPOSA Act, Delay in executing detention order.Challenge to detention order u/s 3(1) of COFEPOSA Act:The petitioner challenged the detention order passed by the detaining authority u/s 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act, alleging that the delay in executing the order vitiated the subjective satisfaction of the authority. The petitioner contended that despite being available at his office and residence, the authorities delayed the execution for nearly 40 days, rendering the apprehensions of the detaining authority regarding future activities as punitive. The detaining authority, in response, denied the petitioner's availability and stated that the order was executed promptly upon the petitioner's appearance before the Enforcement Officer.Delay in executing detention order:The detaining authority explained the delay in executing the detention order by stating that the petitioner was not available at known addresses, contrary to the petitioner's claim of being present at his office and residence. The petitioner's appearance before the Metropolitan Magistrate in the same case was acknowledged, highlighting the lack of diligence in serving the detention order promptly. The Court emphasized the necessity for the detaining authority to satisfactorily explain any inordinate delay in executing detention orders to prevent the vitiation of subjective satisfaction. In this case, the Court found the delay of 40 days without a satisfactory explanation to be unreasonable, leading to the quashing of the detention order and ordering the detenu's immediate release if not required in any other criminal case.Judgment:The Supreme Court allowed the Criminal Writ Petition, quashing the detention order dated February 25, 1999, and ordering the immediate release of the detenu if not needed in any other criminal case.