TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether non-consideration of the revocation order passed in favour of a co-detenu in the same transaction vitiated the Advisory Board's opinion and the Government's order confirming detention.
Analysis: The detention was founded on material collected in a gold-smuggling case under the COFEPOSA Act. The Court applied the constitutional safeguards under Article 22 and the statutory scheme under Section 8 of the COFEPOSA Act, which requires independent and meaningful consideration of the detenu's representation and the relevant material before confirmation of detention. The revocation of the co-detenu's detention had already been passed on the basis of the Advisory Board's opinion that there was no sufficient cause for detention. Since that revocation concerned a person involved in the same transaction and was available before the confirmation decision, it was a relevant circumstance that ought to have been considered. The failure of both the Advisory Board and the Government to consider that revocation order amounted to non-consideration of a vital relevant material.
Conclusion: The non-consideration of the co-detenu's revocation order vitiated the confirmation of detention and the detention order could not stand.
Ratio Decidendi: In preventive detention matters, failure to consider a prior revocation of detention passed in favour of a co-detenu involved in the same transaction constitutes non-consideration of relevant material and vitiates the order of confirmation.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
