Kirit Shrimankar vs Union of India - 2014 Supreme(SC) 1092

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2014 Supreme(SC) 1092

FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, A.M.SAPRE
Kirit Shrimankar – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Kapil Sibal, Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, Mr. V.K. Bali, Mr. Saurabh Kirpal, Ms. Manali Singhal, Mr. Aditya Soni, Ms. Christine Acy Kumar, Ms. Diksha Rai, Mr. Shyam Divan, Mr. Saurabh Kirpal, Mr. Sanjay Agarwal, Mr. Nikhil Jain, Mr. V.K. Bali, Mr. Aditya Soni, Ms. Christine Acy Kumar, Mr. Gautam Awasthi, Mr. Saurabh Kirpal, Ms. Neeha Nagpal, Mr. Manesh Agarwal, Mr. E.C. Agrawala, Mr. Pankaj Bhatia, Mr. Vivek Chaudhary, Ms. Bharti Tyagi, Mr. Saurabh Kirpal, Mr. Sanjay Agarwal, Mr. Gautam Awasthi, Mr. Sanjay Agarwal, Mr. Nikhil Jain, Mr. Nikhil Jain, Mr. Gautam Awasthi, Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, Mr. Saurabh Kirpal, Mr. Sanjay Agarwal, Mr. Nikhil Jain, Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Dr. Vinod K. Tewari, Mr. Pankaj Kumar Singh, Mr. Satish Pandey, Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Ms. Poli Kataki, Mr. Sumit Kumar, Mr. Ramakant Gaur, Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Ms. Shikha Sapra, Mr. Anil Kumar Tandale, Ms. Shikha Sapra, Mr. Tushar Joshi, Mr. Anil Kumar Tandale, Mr. R.K. Handoo, Mr. Yoginder Hondoo, Mr. N. Ganpathy
For the Respondents: Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Mr. V. Shekhar, Ms. Ranjana Narayan, Ms. Binu Tamta, Mr. Pankaj Pandey, Ms. Sonali Singh, Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, Mr. Shreekant N. Terdal

ORDER :

Facts are being taken from W.P.(Crl) No.109/2013, which is the lead case in this batch of matters.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. In the course of hearing of the Writ Petition, we find that the writ petition was premature. The petitioners seek for the prayers as have been couched in the writ petition where the petitioners pray for issuance of mandamus to determine the question of law, as to whether the allegation of commission of offence under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 would construe a bailable offence with further directions to comply with Sections 154, 155 and 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to investigate a cognizable/non-cognizable offence, if any, under Section 135 of the Customs Act. In fact, when we perused the averments contained in the Writ Petition the provocation for the petitioner to file this writ petition was the so-called search conducted in the residential premises of the petitioner's ex-wife on 11.06.2013, who was residing at C-103, Gokul Divine, James Wadi, Irla, Ville Parle (West), Mumbai-400 056 and nothing incriminating was detected in the said search. It was further averred therein that the Officers threatened that the petit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2014 Supreme(SC) 1092

FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, A.M.SAPREKirit Shrimankar – AppellantVersusUnion of India – Respondent

FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, A.M.SAPRE
Kirit Shrimankar – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent