Page 162 - ELT_15th August 2020_Vol 373_Part 4

496 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

to appear on 9-1-1998 and an order under Section 83 of Cr.PC was also issued.
Therefore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the contention with regard to
the delay in detaining the detenu cannot be accepted. However, in the instant
case, the same has not happened. No effort is made by the State under Section 7
of the COFEPOSA Act. There is no publication or proclamation. Therefore, in the
absence of complying with the provisions of Section 7 of the Act, the further de-
tention of the detenu becomes illegal.
10. The further reliance by the respondent - State is on the Judgment in
the case of Bhawarlal Ganeshmalji v. State of Tamil Nadu and Another. reported
(1979) 1 SCC 465. This also is in favour of the detenu. In that case also, the ac-
cused was found to be absconding. However, action was taken pursuant to Sec-
tion 7 of the said Act. He was proclaimed as a person absconding under Section
82 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The proclamation was published and a re-
ward was announced. However, in this case nothing seems to have been done.
The provisions of Section 7 have not been followed. There is no effort made by
the State. Even the reasoning assigned by them cannot be accepted. It cannot be
said that there was any effort by the State in making any arrest. The contention of
the Learned Government Advocate that the State has to be satisfied that he is
absconding cannot be accepted, especially in view of the fact that he was arrested
six months after the order of detention. Hence, following the aforesaid decisions,
the petition requires to be allowed. Under these circumstances, no further con-
tentions are advanced by the petitioner’s Counsel. For the aforesaid reasons, we
pass the following :-
ORDER
(i) Writ Petition Habeas Corpus No. 138 of 2019 is allowed. The further
detention of the detenu is held to be illegal.
(ii) The detenu, namely, Sri Natade Teekukal Jamsheer (N.T. Jamsheer),
Son of Sri Veliya Arepeal Ahmed (V.A. Ahmed), is directed to be re-
leased from custody forthwith, if he is not required in any other
case/s.
(iii) Registry is directed to communicate the operative portion of this
order to the Jail Authorities, Central Prisons, Parapanna Agrahara,
Bengaluru, forthwith, for necessary action.
_______
2020 (373) E.L.T. 496 (Mad.)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C. Saravanan, J.
MILLIONS FASHION
Versus
CUSTOMS, C. EX. & S.T. SETT. COMM., CHENNAI
W.P. No. 29424 of 2015 and M.P. Nos. 1-2 of 2015, decided on 19-2-2020
Settlement application - Confusion in petitioner’s stand - Dismissal of
settlement application on the ground of complexity of fact and law - Petitioner
seeking adjudication of issue of maintainability of application for settlement
under Section 127B of Customs Act, 1962 in relation to goods notified under

EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th August 2020  162