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>Detention orders quashed under COFEPOSA Act, emphasizing need for considering all relevant material</h1> <h3>Ram Goyal Versus Union of India and Anr.</h3> The High Court quashed the detention orders under the COFEPOSA Act against two petitioners, allowing their release unless required under a valid law or ... - Issues:1. Validity of orders of detention under COFEPOSA Act.2. Consideration of relevant material by the detaining authority.3. Role of prosecution proceedings in passing a detention order.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: The High Court considered the validity of orders of detention under the COFEPOSA Act issued against two petitioners. The court quashed the detention orders dated 3rd July, 1982 against the petitioners, allowing their release unless required under a valid law or pending prosecution. The court detailed the circumstances leading to the detention, including the recovery of gold bars from the petitioners' baggage at the airport.Issue 2: The main contention raised was the non-consideration of relevant material by the detaining authority. The petitioners argued that certain documents, including bail applications, pre-charge evidence, and order on charge, were crucial and should have been taken into account. The court held that these documents were indeed relevant circumstances that should have been considered by the Administrator before passing the detention orders.Issue 3: The court analyzed the role of prosecution proceedings in the context of passing a detention order. The respondents argued that prosecution was not relevant to preventive detention under the COFEPOSA Act. However, the court disagreed, emphasizing that the pendency of prosecution is a significant circumstance that the detaining authority must consider. The court cited previous judgments to support the view that relevant circumstances, including prosecution proceedings, must be taken into account before passing a detention order.In conclusion, the High Court allowed the writ petitions filed by the petitioners based on the failure of the detaining authority to consider vital material, such as bail applications and pre-charge evidence, before passing the detention orders. The court emphasized the importance of relevant circumstances, including the pendency of prosecution, in making decisions regarding preventive detention under the COFEPOSA Act.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
