SHIV RATAN MAKLM S/O NANDLAL MAKLM versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

SHIV RATAN MAKLM S/O NANDLAL MAKLM versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Having regard to the nature and circumstances of the incident, the petitioner's own admission, and the explanation for delay, the detention order under Section 3 of COFEPOSA was valid, as it was plainly aimed at preventing the petitioner from engaging in further smuggling and not to circumvent the criminal law.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Petitioner: Shiv Ratan Makim S/o Nandlal Makim; Respondent: Union of India and Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
16 December 1985
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition (criminal) No. 1122 of 1985 Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India / Final Disposal—petition Dismissed
Outcome
Petition dismissed.
Legal Topics
COFEPOSA Act—section 3, Habeas Corpus, Preventive Vs Punitive Detention, Delay Between Incident and Detention, Solitary Incident as Ground for Detention
Criminal Law Preventive Detention Constitutional Law COFEPOSA Act—section 3 Habeas Corpus Preventive Vs Punitive Detention Delay Between Incident and Detention Solitary Incident as Ground for Detention

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shiv Ratan Makim S/o Nandlal Makim

Petitioner

Union of India and Ors.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition (criminal) No. 1122 of 1985 Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India / Final Disposal—petition Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a single incident of smuggling is sufficient for preventive detention under COFEPOSA.
  2. 2 Whether time lapse between incident and detention order vitiates the detention order.
  3. 3 Whether the detention order can be made to bypass or supplant criminal prosecution.

Ratio Decidendi

Having regard to the nature and circumstances of the incident, the petitioner's own admission, and the explanation for delay, the detention order under Section 3 of COFEPOSA was valid, as it was plainly aimed at preventing the petitioner from engaging in further smuggling and not to circumvent the criminal law.

Court Disposition

Petition dismissed.

Orders

  • Order of detention under Section 3 of COFEPOSA is sustained.
  • Writ petition praying for revocation of detention is dismissed.