Issue
Facts
Arguments Of Petitioner
Reasoning
Decision
Rajendra Prashad
v.
State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another
(Supreme Court Of India)
Criminal Appeal No. 536 of 1981 | 28-07-1981
1. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad dismissing an application for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus
2. On February 4, 1980 some electronic goods of foreign origin were seized from the shop of the appellant in the course of a raid. The seizure was communicated to the Government on August 8, 1980. The Government made an order of detention under COFEPOSA on September 19, 1980
3. In this appeal Shri Vimal Dave, learned counsel for the appellant, argues that no activity was alleged against the appellant from February 4, 1980 until September 24, 1980 when he was arrested and that circumstance coupled with the fact that proceedings under the Customs Act were pending against the appellant made it abundantly clear that there could be no apprehension in the mind of the detaining authority that the appellant would indulge in future in any smuggling activity. We are unable to agree with the submission of Shri Dave. The seizure of electronic goods from the shop of the appellant is not so remote in point of time as to be brushed aside. In the circumstances, we are not prepared to go behind the order of detention. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed
4. Appeal dismissed.
2. On February 4, 1980 some electronic goods of foreign origin were seized from the shop of the appellant in the course of a raid. The seizure was communicated to the Government on August 8, 1980. The Government made an order of detention under COFEPOSA on September 19, 1980
3. In this appeal Shri Vimal Dave, learned counsel for the appellant, argues that no activity was alleged against the appellant from February 4, 1980 until September 24, 1980 when he was arrested and that circumstance coupled with the fact that proceedings under the Customs Act were pending against the appellant made it abundantly clear that there could be no apprehension in the mind of the detaining authority that the appellant would indulge in future in any smuggling activity. We are unable to agree with the submission of Shri Dave. The seizure of electronic goods from the shop of the appellant is not so remote in point of time as to be brushed aside. In the circumstances, we are not prepared to go behind the order of detention. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed
4. Appeal dismissed.
Advocates List
For
For Petitioner
- Shekhar Naphade
- Mahesh Agrawal
- Tarun Dua
For Respondent
- S. Vani
- B. Sunita Rao
- Sushil Kumar Pathak
Bench List
HON'BLE JUSTICE A. P. SEN
HON'BLE JUSTICE BAHARUL ISLAM
HON'BLE JUSTICE O. CHINNAPPA REDDY
Eq Citation
AIR 1982 SC 1256
(1981) 4 SCC 558
1982 CRILJ 1741
(1981) SCC CRI 870
LQ/SC/1981/310
HeadNote
A. Constitution of India — Arts. 226 and 32 — Habeas corpus — Detained under COFEPOSA — Seizure of electronic goods from shop of appellant in course of raid — High Court dismissing writ petition — On facts held, seizure of electronic goods from shop of appellant is not so remote in point of time as to be brushed aside — Hence, no interference with order of detention called for — Habeas corpus — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — S. 491 — Habeas corpus — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S. 439
Thank you for subscribing! Please check your inbox to opt-in.
Oh no, error happened! Please check the email address and/or try again.
Deleting Note..
Are you sure you want to move this note to trash?
