Section 10. Maximum period of detention
The maximum period for which any person may be detained in pursuance of any detention order to which the provisions of section 9 do not apply and which has been confirmed under clause (f) of section 8 shall be 1[a period of one year from the date of detention or the specified period, whichever period expires later] and the maximum period for which any person may be detained in pursuance of any detention order to which the provisions of section 9 apply and which has been confirmed under clause (f) of section 8 read with sub-section (2) of section 9 shall be 2[a period of two years from the date of detention or the specified period, whichever period expires later]:
Provided that nothing contained in this section shall affect the power of the appropriate Government in either case to revoke or modify the detention order at any earlier time.
3[Explanation.--In this section and in section 10A, "specified period" means the period during which the Proclamation of Emergency issued under clause (1) of article 352 of the Constitution on the 3rd day of December, 1971 and the Proclamation of Emergency issued under that clause on the 25th day of June, 1975, are both in operation.]
Judgements applying section 10
In a habeas corpus petition challenging a preventive detention order under COFEPOSA, the High Court quashed the order due to an unexplained delay. The Court held that the appropriate government acted negligently by waiting for the detaining authority's decision before transmitting representations and comments to…
AllowedOpenFive appeals challenging property forfeiture orders under SAFEMA. The Tribunal held that the lapse of detention orders due to failure of confirmation under COFEPOSA does not invalidate prior forfeiture orders under SAFEMA, as the Act applies to persons against whom detention orders were validly made.
The Tribunal held that the forfeiture order passed under Section 7 of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 remains valid even if the underlying detention order under COFEPOSA lapsed by efflux of time due to lack of Government confirmation.
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25430 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-262 Year-2021 Thana- SIKTI District- Araria ====================================================== PARWEZ ALAM S/o Gulam Moiduddin Resident of
AllowedOpenCOURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.66801 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-110 Year-2021 Thana- FULKAHA District- Araria ====================================================== Prakash Pal, Son of Bhulai Pal Resident of
AllowedOpenThe court upheld COFEPOSA detention orders arising from a gold smuggling racket run from Dubai. It held the delay was explained by the voluminous investigation, rejected the plea that retracted Section 108 Customs Act statements vitiated the orders, found the material documents supplied, and held parity with…
DismissedOpen
Show 4 more
Supreme Court, 08.04.2019, Criminal Appeals Nos. 1492-1493 of 2009 (Uday Umesh Lalit and Hemant Gupta JJ.; judgment by Uday Umesh Lalit J.), dismissing challenges to SAFEMA forfeiture. Key terms: SAFEMA s.2(2)(b) and its four-part proviso; COFEPOSA ss.3, 3(1), 3(2), 5-A, 8(f), 9, 10, 10A, 12A; MISA s.3(2);
DismissedOpenPreventive detention for repeated gold smuggling was challenged on passport surrender, bail conditions, representation disposal and delay. The Court upheld the detention orders and continued detention, rejected pre-execution disclosure and reduction of detention duration, and dismissed both writ petitions.
DismissedOpenThe High Court of Delhi held that preventive detention orders against Rohit Sakhuja and Ajit Singh Chadha, who were already in judicial custody, were illegal. The court ruled that there was no imminent possibility of their release on bail as no bail applications were pending, and the grounds failed to meet the…
Writ Petition (Criminal)OpenTwo writ petitions challenging preventive detention orders under COFEPOSA against Rohit Sakhuja and Ajit Singh Chadha, who were in judicial custody. The court held that since there was no imminent possibility of their release on bail and the detention orders lacked material regarding similar cases where bail was…
Writ Petition (Criminal)Open