Section 2. Definitions
In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--
(a) "appropriate Government" means, as respects a detention order made by the Central Government or by an officer of the Central Government or a person detained under such order, the Central Government, and as respects a detention order made by a State Government or by an officer of a State Government or a person detained under such order, the State Government;
(b) "detention order" means an order made under section 3;
(c) "foreigner" has the same meaning as in the Foreigners Act, 1946 (31 of 1946);
(d) "Indian customs waters" has the same meaning as in clause (28) of section 2 of the Customs Act, 1962;
(e) "smuggling" has the same meaning as in clause (39) of section 2 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), and all its grammatical variations and cognate expressions shall be construed accordingly;
(f) "State Government", in relation to a Union territory, means the administrator thereof;
(g) any reference in this Act to a law which is not in force in the State of Jammu and Kashmir shall, in relation to that State, be construed as a reference to the corresponding law, if any, in force in that State.
Judgements applying section 2
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…
AllowedOpenHigh Court of Kerala dismissed habeas corpus petitions challenging detention orders passed under COFEPOSA against domestic gps tum ee spouse of smugglers. Court held that Customs Act statements under Section 108, CCTV footage, and prison custody were valid bases for subjective satisfaction, rejecting claims of illegal…
DismissedOpenPetitioner challenged preventive detention order under COFEPOSA Act via habeas corpus. High Court held no delay invalidated order, sufficiency of materials supplied was adequate given statutory basis of evidence, and State Advisory Board was competent to hear Central Government detention cases under Article 22(4).
DismissedOpenThe 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…
DismissedOpenThree COFEPOSA detenus challenged preventive detention orders arising from a gold-smuggling racket allegedly operating since 2014. The court rejected grounds of unexplained delay, non-supply of documents, reliance on retracted statements and delay in deciding representations, holding the detentions preventive and…
DismissedOpenIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 5430 OF 2017 Mohammed Yunus Sajjad Pasha ] Peerzade, an Indian National, ] Age 53 years, residing at Laxmi ] Tower II, BWing, 503, Naya ]
AllowedOpen
Show 4 more
OF DELHI : NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on: 02.02.2011 + WP (Cr1) No. 1662 of 2010 Varun Gupta Petitioner Li Versus Union of India & Ors Respondents • And + .WP (Cr1) No. 1664of 2010 Ram Kishan Das Petitioner Versus Union of India & Ors. Re
Writ Petition (Criminal)OpenNos.1662/2010 & 1664/2010 Page 1 of 17 * HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on: 02.02.2011 + WP (Crl) No. 1662 of 2010 Varun Gupta ......Petitioner Versus Union of India & Ors. ……Respondents And + WP (Crl) No. 1664 of 2010 R
Writ Petition (Criminal)OpenIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.3233 OF 2010 Suresh Kumar U.Jain @ Sanjay Srinath Rana, Age about 44 years, An Indian Inhabitant, Residing at Flat No.101, Behind State Bank
DisposedOpen- DismissedOpen