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

2017 Supreme(Del) 1842

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL AND MUKTA GUPTA, JJ.
SANDHYA JAIN - PETITIONER
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. - RESPONDENT
W.P.(CRL) 245 of 2017
Decided On : 31-05-2017

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ramakant Gaur, Mr. J.P. Singh, Ms. Amrita Joshi
For the Respondents: Mr. Sanjeev Narula, with Mr. Anshuman Upadhyay, Mr. Vineet Sharma for Mr. Satish Aggarwala

The Detaining Authority's subjective satisfaction for a detention order must be based on the imminent likelihood of the detainee being released on bail, supported by relevant details about alleged bail orders in similar cases.

Headnote:

Detention Order - Challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Conservation of Foreign Exchange & Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 - Section 3(1) - Summary of Acts and Sections: COFEPOSA Act, 1974, Section 3(1) - The court discussed the involvement of the petitioner's husband in smuggling of gold on numerous occasions in the past, as well as the legality of the detention order based on the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged the detention order of her husband under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, based on the Conservation of Foreign Exchange & Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA Act). The detention order was served on the petitioner's husband on 10th October, 2016, followed by the grounds of detention and relied upon documents served on 11th October, 2016.

Finding of the Court:

The court analyzed the grounds of detention and the legality of the detention order. It found that the Detaining Authority's subjective satisfaction was based on the possibility of the petitioner's husband applying for bail again, rather than an imminent likelihood of his release on bail. As a result, the court set aside the detention order and ordered the release of Narender Kumar Jain.

Issues: The issues raised included the non-placement of vital and material documents before the Detaining Authority, the alleged ante-dating of the grounds of detention, and the lack of satisfaction by the Detaining Authority regarding the imminent possibility of the petitioner's husband being granted bail.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Detaining Authority's subjective satisfaction must be based on the imminent likelihood of the petitioner's husband being released on bail, and not merely on the possibility of him applying for bail again. It emphasized the importance of providing relevant details about alleged bail orders in similar cases to support the detention order.

Final Decision: The court set aside the detention order dated 10th October, 2016 and ordered the release of Narender Kumar Jain.

JUDGMENT :

MUKTA GUPTA, J.

1. In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the challenge is to the order of detention dated 10th October, 2016 passed by the Joint Secretary to Government of India against husband of the petitioner i.e. Narender Kumar Jain directing his detention under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange & Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (in short ‘the COFEPOSA Act’). The detention order dated 10th October, 2016 was served on the petitioner’s husband on the same day followed by the grounds of detention and relied upon documents served on 11th October, 2016.

2. Briefly the facts set out in the grounds of detention on the basis of which the detention order dated 10th October, 2016 has been passed are:

2.1 Upon receipt of a specific intelligence, the Delhi Zonal Unit (DZU) of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) seized 60 gold bars weighing 9955.2 grams at CELEBI warehouse, Domestic Terminal, Air Cargo Complex, New Delhi on 1st/2nd September, 2016 from one Sartaj vide Panchnama dated 1st/2nd September, 2016. The market value of the seized gold was appraised at Rs. 3.06 crores. The consignment was booked by M/s. Aameen Traders, Guwahati to M/s. Aameen Traders, Delhi and Sartaj was the authorized representative of M/s. Aameen Traders for collection of the said consignment sent through Jet Airways vide airway bill No.48510383 and the description of the goods in the airway bill was given as ‘Bullion’. In his statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 on 2nd/3rd September, 2016 Sartaj inter-alia stated that he was working as a driver for M/s. Rara Brothers on a salary of Rs. 9000/- per month and was assigned the duty to take delivery of goods from Air Cargo, New Delhi and was paid Rs. 500/- per shipment in addition to his salary. He visited Air Cargo to take delivery of gold on directions of Narender Kumar Jain who was the owner of M/s. Rara Brothers and he has been performing this duty for approximately two years. He knew that the arrived shipment contained gold and used to go to Air Cargo complex twice or thrice a week for taking delivery of the consignment. He informed that the shop of M/s. Rara Brothers was at 1171, Kucha Mahajani, Chandni Chowk and Anoop and Harsh also worked with M/s. Rara Brothers besides Raju Arora, who is his brother-in-law.

2.2 Officers of DRI summoned and recorded the statement of Narender Kumar Jain on 2nd/3rd September, 2016 under Section 108 of the Customs Act wherein he inter alia stated that he was born on 28th October, 1970 at Guwahati, Assam and after completing his B.A. he started sitting with his father late Shri Mahabir Prasad Jain in his firm namely M/s. Rara Brothers at 1st first floor, Shiv Market, Fancy Bazaar, Guwahati, Assam. This firm dealt in purchase of silver, gold, old utensils, jewellery and precious stones. Initially the firm was a proprietorship firm of his grandfather and thereafter of his father, however the firm was converted into a company namely M/s. Rara Brothers Pvt. Ltd. in the year 1997 with four Directors, namely Mahabir Prasad Jain, Manbhar Devi Jain, Sandhya Jain and Narender Kumar Jain. After the death of his father, he was looking after the affairs of his company and business and had one office at 1171, third Floor, Kucha Mahajani, Chandni Chowk which was looked after by Anoop Mishra, Harsh Shrivastava and one peon Chauhan. He informed about his various visits to Hong Kong, Macau, Bangkok and several other Countries on different occasions and that in the year 2014 he started procuring foreign origin gold, which was smuggled from Burma by various carriers, who used to bring 1-2 kgs of gold to his shop at Guwahati. This gold was 24 carat pure gold and most of the time he paid in cash though on some occasions through cheque. Though there was no marking on gold but he was aware that the












































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top