Back
2020 Supreme(Del) 1307
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manmohan, Sanjeev Narula, JJ.
Mohd Nashruddin Khan - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. - Respondent
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 786 of 2020
Decided On : 26-05-2020
Vikram Chaudhari, Advocate, Harshat Sethi, Advocate, Maninder Acharya, Advocate, Amit Mahajan, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interlink between the detention order and the notification under Section 7 of the COFEPOSA Act, allowing the petitioner to amend the petition to include a challenge to the notification.
Headnote:
COFEPOSA - Detention Order - Section 3(1) of COFEPOSA Act, 1974 - Section 7 of COFEPOSA Act - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the petitioner's challenge to the detention order under Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act, 1974 and the subsequent notification under Section 7(1)(b) of the same Act. The court allowed the petitioner to amend the petition to include a challenge to the notification, emphasizing the interlink between the detention order and the notification.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged a detention order under Section 3(1) of COFEPOSA Act, 1974. The court allowed the petitioner to amend the petition to include a challenge to the notification under Section 7(1)(b) of the same Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner should be permitted to impugn the notification along with the main petition, as the notification under Section 7 of the Act is interlinked with the detention order.
Issues: The issues involved the challenge to the detention order under Section 3(1) of COFEPOSA Act, 1974 and the subsequent notification under Section 7(1)(b) of the same Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interlink between the detention order and the notification under Section 7 of the COFEPOSA Act, allowing the petitioner to amend the petition to include a challenge to the notification.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petitioner to amend the petition to include a challenge to the notification under Section 7(1)(b) of the COFEPOSA Act, and directed the petitioner to place the amended writ petition within three days for final hearing on 15.06.2020.
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Narula, J. - Crl. M.A. No. 6483/2020
1. The petitioner by way of the present application under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) seeks permission to introduce an additional prayer in the writ petition and integrate additional grounds to support the said proposed relief.
Factual Background
2. In order to discern the context of the proposed amendments, it would be appropriate and also essential that we briefly note the factual background relating to the filing of the present application. To put it succinctly, the main writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 of Cr.P.C. is directed against the detention order No.DT-12001/03/2020-COFEPOSA dated 21.01.2020 issued by Respondent No.2, under Section 3(1) of COFEPOSA Act, 1974. The petitioner asserts that he is a non-resident Indian citizen and is engaged in trading of gold jewellery in U.A.E. On 24.04.2019, he was detained by the officers of DRI at IGI Airport, New Delhi on the allegations of involvement in illicit import and export of gold jewellery, whilst he was travelling to India from Dubai. The petitioner was formally arrested by the officers of DRI on 26.04.2019 and was produced before the learned Duty Metropolitan Magistrate on 26.04.2019 at her residence at 23:00 hrs and was remanded to judicial custody till 27.04.2019. Vide order dated 3.06.2019, the learned CMM, Patiala House Court, New Delhi released the petitioner on bail. Subsequently, on 22.08.2019 petitioner moved an application seeking permission to travel abroad and for release of passport. Thereafter, DRI filed an application seeking cancellation of petitioner''s bail. This brought about several legal proceedings between the petitioner and the DRI.
3. The petitioner at the first instance approached the Supreme Court, vide W.P. (CRL.) No. 63/2020, challenging the impugned detention order. However, the Court did not interfere and vide order dated 16.03.2020, granted permission to the Petitioner to withdraw the writ petition and approach the High Court. The relevant extract of the said order reads as under:
"Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this Writ Petition to approach the High Court.
Permission is granted.
The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty."
4. Availing the liberty granted by the Supreme Court, as noted above, the petitioner has filed the present petition. Incontrovertibly, that the present petition has been filed prior to the execution of the detention order. Nevertheless, the petition was entertained and the learned predecessor bench vide order dated 24.04.2020 while issuing notice of the present petition, passed the following order:
"The petitioner has preferred this writ petition to assail the order of detention dated 21.01.2020 passed under Section 3 of the COFEPOSA Act. The petition has been preferred at the pre-detention stage. Issue notice. Mr. Mahajan accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.
Mr. Mahajan seeks an adjournment till Monday on the ground that the learned ASG has been briefed in the matter and she does not appear before this Bench. Alternatively, he states that the matter may be directed to be listed today itself before Division Bench I, which has also assembled today.
On the other hand, Mr. Chaudhri submits that the petitioner be granted protection against execution of the Detention Order, in case the matter is to be adjourned to another date.
Mr. Mahajan submits that no interim directions be passed in the meantime, considering the fact that the detention order was passed on 21.01.2020, and the petitioner earlier approached the Supreme Court, and only after a month thereafter, he has moved the present petition before this Court. He submits that proceedings under Section 7 of the COFEPOSA Act have already been taken, and the petitioner has been absconding ever since passing of the detention order. He, therefo
