TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (3) TMI 1700
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ties Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA) on 15.01.2010. However, the detention order was served on the detenue only on 25.11.2010, after a delay of 10 months and 10 days. He, however, submitted that the detenue was arrested on 05.02.2010 in relation to FIR 68/2010 and has been in jail since then. He referred to Annexure R-3 to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents to indicate that the arrest of the detenue was in the knowledge of the respondents and the detaining authority on 05.02.2010 itself. He submitted that despite the detenue being in police custody, the detention order was not served on the detenue till WP (Crl) 1741/2010 was filed in this Court on 23.11.2010, which came up for hearing on 24.11.2010. The hearing of that writ peti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rook 2000 SCC (Crl) 411 40 days 2. S. M. F. Sultan Abdul Kadar (1998) 8 SCC 343 Less than 5 months 3. T. A. Abdul Rehman AIR 1990 SC 225 3 months 4. K. P. M. Bashir 1992 Crl. L. J 1927 (3 Judges) 5 months & 11 days 5. Sk. Nizamuddin AIR 1974 SC 2353 2-1/2 months 6. Sk. Serajul v. State of West Bengal AIR 1975 SC 1517 (4 Judges) 6 months 7. Dinesh Kumar Jain 78 (1999) DLT 800 (DB) Less than 3 months 8. Vijay Kumar Gupta 98 (2002) DLT 638 (DB) 31 days (delay of 11 days in despatching the D.O & 20 days in serving the same) 9. Saroj Taneja 48 (1992) DLT 118 41 days 10. Lalit Pataudi 41 (1990) DLT 8 2 months & 20 days Mr Chandhiok, the learned Additional Solicitor General appea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l affidavit has not been filed till today. 3. Thus, there is no explanation other than what has been stated by the respondents in their counter-affidavit with regard to the delay in executing the detention order, despite the fact that the detenue was arrested on 05.02.2010 and that fact was within the knowledge of the detaining authority. In the said counter-affidavit, in the parawise reply to paras 1 and 2 at page 56 of the paper book, it has been indicated by the respondents that the Crime Branch, EOW, Mumbai Police informed the Directorate of Enforcement that the detenue had been apprehended on 04.02.2010 near Delhi and was being brought to Mumbai on transit remand in connection with the case registered by them against him. It is also n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....side Mumbai such as Pune, Chennai, Bangalore and New Delhi. Strangely, the reason given in the counter affidavit for not serving the detention order is noted as under:- "The detention order could not be served in the police custody." 6. The learned counsel for the respondent cited the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Gour Chandra Dey v. State of West Bengal: 1976 8 SCC 192 to submit that even where the person was in custody, one month's delay in executing the detention order was considered to be explained. That decision stands on its own facts and is clearly different from the fact-situation arising in the present case. Here the delay in execution is not of a few days or one month but the delay is of 10 months and 10 days. Thr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... under:- "There is also no material to show that the detaining authority had made any serious attempt during this whole period of delay to find out if the detention order was executed or not. Thus, the delay in execution of the detention order remains unexplained. The unreasonable delay in executing the order creates a serious doubt regarding the genuineness of the detaining authority as regards the immediate necessity of detaining the petitioner in order to prevent him from carrying on the prejudicial activity referred to in the grounds of detention. We are of the opinion that the order of detention was passed by the detaining authority not in lawful exercise of the power vested in him. We, therefore, allow this petition, set aside and qu....