SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2006 Supreme(Del) 1336

High Court Of Delhi
R. S. Sodhi, P. K. Bhasin
ARJUN SINGH - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF DELHI - Respondents
Writ Petition (Crl.) 950 Of 2006
Decided On : 08/11/2006

Advocates Appeared:
ARUN BHARDWAJ, Karunesh Tandon, Mukta Gupta, RAJAT KATYAL, S.K.Sahijpal

Headnote:Conservation of Foreign Exchange & Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 Section 3 - Order of preventive detention made on the basis of recovery of foreign currency - Bail granted to the detenue in the criminal case - Delay in passing the order of detention - No urgency in passing of preventive detention order shown by the Department as also detaining authority - Unsatisfactory and unexplained delay - Order of detention, set aside.


R. S. SODHI, J.

( 1 ) WRIT Petition (Criminal) No. 950 of 2006 has been filed with the prayer for quashing/setting aside detention order No. F/5/7/2005-Home (P-II)dated 12. 1. 2006 passed under Section 3 (1) of the Conservation of Foreign exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short 'the cofeposa Act' ).

( 2 ) BRIEF facts of the case, as stated by the petitioner in the writ petition, are as under:"that brief facts of the case are that on 29/7/2005, the petitioner came on his usual trip to Delhi to visit his children in Delhi and also to finalise one property deal during his stay. The petitioner is frequent flier to Delhi and flies between Dubai and Delhi every week or at least once in a fortnight. The petitioner was carrying with himself foreign currencies equivalent to indian Rs. 86,87,142. 00 which included Saudi Riyals, American Dollars, pounds, Dirham, etc. to purchase a property. That on 30/7/2005, when the petitioner was returning to Dubai he was arrested by Custom officials where he was physically beaten up and mentally tortured and was made to write as per the dictates of the Custom officials. That the residence, farm house and offices of sons of the petitioner were raided by the custom officials on the same date but nothing incriminating was discovered. That the alleged voluntary statement before the independent Customs supdt. Mr. G. P. Singh under Section 108 of the Customs Act, was nothing more than imagination of his own mind that he got written by the petitioner from which the petitioner retracted on the first possible opportunity. It is pertinent to mention herein that Shri G. P. Singh was not an independent officer as is evident from the documents supplied. That in the alleged voluntary statement, it has been mentioned that petitioner was carrying aforesaid foreign currencies for one Mr. Girdhari lai for a consideration of Rs. 60,000/ -. Even though fact is that the petitioner had informed the Custom officials that the petitioner had withdrawn money in Dubai from his bank viz. , Habib Bank AJ, Zurich from the account of m/sdaljeewe Textiles LLC copy of the same is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure A and thereafter, the petitioner had covered Dirhams into currency of US Dollars, Saudi Riyals, euros and GB Pound from M/s. Orient Exchange Company LLC, PB No. 376, Dubai, copy of the same is annexed herewith and marked as annexure-B. That petitioner was released on bail on 5. 9. 2005. Thereafter, with the permission of the Court, the petitioner went to Dubai vide order dated 18. 10. 2005 to look after his business and returned to Delhi. That the petitioner was again arrested by the Custom officials on 17. 1. 06 from his residence at S-285, Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi and was lodged in Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi, that is when petitioner learnt that Detention Order No. F/5/7/2005-Home (P-II) dated 12. 1. 2006 has been issued against him by the Deputy Secretary, Home, Government of nct Delhi under Section 3 (1) of the COFEPOS A Act, 1974 for the same alleged offence for which the petitioner was already facing a trial. Since then, the petitioner is under detention at Tihar Jail. Copy of the same is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-C. That on 9. 3. 2006 the petitioner made a representation to the Advisory board at High Court of Delhi but no order has been passed by the advisory Board till date. Copy of the representation is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-D. "

( 3 ) AGGRIEVED of the order Dated 12. 1. 2006 passed under Section 3 (1) of the cofeposa Act, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition.

( 4 ) THE only ground raised by the petitioner before us is that the detaining authority has taken considerable time in issuance of detention order which would go to show that there was no necessity or urgency to detain the detenu to prevent from smuggling goods in future. Counsel contended that the petitioner was first arrested on 30. 7. 2005










Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top