Page 160 - ELT_15th August 2020_Vol 373_Part 4

494 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

Manju Ramesh Nahar v. Union of India — (1999) 4 SCC 116 — Relied on .................................. [Paras 3, 8]
Vinod K. Chawla v. Union of India — (2006) 7 SCC 337 — Distinguished ............................... [Paras 5, 9]
REPRESENTED BY : S/Shri Anil D. Kaithakkal for Naveen Kumara P.,
Advocates, for the Petitioner.
Shri S.V. Girikumar, Additional Government
Advocate, for the Respondent.
[Order]. - The petitioner is the wife of the detenu. They are citizens of
India. She is interested in the well being of her husband. That the respondent -
State passed an order of preventive detention dated 21-2-2019 in exercise of the
powers conferred under Section 3(1)(ii) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange
and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. There was a direction to place
him under detention forthwith. The translated copies of the documents and the
order were also furnished to him in the language known to him that is, in Mala-
yalam. Thereafter, he was taken into custody on 10-8-2019. Thereafter, the instant
petition was filed.
2. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner primarily contends that there
is a huge delay in the arrest of the detenu. The detention order was passed on 21-
2-2019 and he was arrested on 10-8-2019. There is no explanation offered by the
respondents for the said delay.
3. Reliance is placed on the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of Manju Ramesh Nahar v. Union of India and Others reported in (1999) 4
SCC 116, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in view of the State not
taking proper steps under Section 7 of the Act and the unexplained delay in ar-
resting the detenu, the detention order itself becomes illegal. Various grounds
are also urged in support of his case. Primarily we are concerned with the initial
ground urged with regard to the delay in arresting the detenu.
4. The respondent - State have filed a memo on behalf of DRI. They
have stated in the memo, the various steps taken by them in order to serve sum-
mons under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 on the detenu. Since the detenu
was not available a notice was served on him and various other acts were done.
They have also filed an affidavit of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, CID,
wherein he has narrated the various steps taken for arresting the detenu. There-
fore, the Learned Government Advocate submits that adequate reasons have
been assigned to explain the delay.
5. In support of his case, he relies on the Judgment of the Hon’ble Su-
preme Court in the case of Vindo K.Chawla v. Union of India and Others reported in
(2006)7 SCO 337 with reference to para-16. Therein the Supreme Court held that
where a person himself evades service of the detention order, it is not open for
him to contend that in view of the long period which has elapsed between the
offending activities and the actual arrest and detention, the vital link had
snapped and there was no ground for actually detaining him. Hence, he pleads
that the petition be dismissed.
6. Heard Learned Counsels.
7. It is undisputed that subsequent to the order of detention passed on
21-2-2019 the detenu was arrested on 10-8-2019. Section 7 of the COFEPOSA Act
prescribes the procedure to be followed by the authorities when the detenu ab-
sconds or conceals himself. Section 7 reads as following :-
“7. Powers in relation to absconding persons. - (1) If the appro-
priate Government has reason to believe that a person in respect of whom a
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th August 2020  160