Skip to content


Rajendra Prashad Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Appeal No. 536 of 1981
Judge
Reported inAIR1982SC1256; 1982CriLJ1741; (1981)4SCC558
ActsCustoms Act
AppellantRajendra Prashad
RespondentState of Uttar Pradesh and anr.
Excerpt:
criminal - detention order - conservation of foreign exchange and prevention of smuggling activities act and customs act - some electronic goods of foreign origin seized from appellant's shop and government made detention order - appeal against detention order - seizure of electronic goods from appellant's shop not remote in point time - held, no need to go behind detention order. - .....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.....
Judgment:

O. Chinnappa Reddy, J.

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.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //