IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Vipin Sanghi, Rajnish Bhatnagar, JJ.
Harmeet Singh - Appellants
Vs.
Union of India and Ors. - Respondent
W.P. (Crl.) 1166/2020 and Crl. M.A. 10239/2020
Decided On : 16-02-2021
DELAY - COFEPOSA - Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, Section 3(1) - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the delay in passing the Detention Order under Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act, 1974. The court analyzed the timeline of events, including the recovery of contraband items, forensic examination of the petitioner's mobile phone, and the subsequent proposal and approval for preventive detention. The court concluded that the delay was satisfactorily explained by the respondents, and the live link between the prejudicial activity and the purpose of detention was not broken.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was intercepted at the airport with contraband items in February 2019. The Detention Order was issued in June 2020. The petitioner argued that the delay in passing the Detention Order was fatal to the detention.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay in passing the Detention Order was satisfactorily explained by the respondents. The court rejected the petitioner's argument and dismissed the petition.
Issues: The main issue was the delay in passing the Detention Order and its impact on the validity of the detention.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the delay in passing the Detention Order was not fatal, as it was satisfactorily explained by the respondents. The court also found that the live link between the prejudicial activity and the purpose of detention was not broken.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, leaving the parties to bear their respective costs.
JUDGMENT :
Vipin Sanghi, J.
1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition to assail the Detention Order bearing No. PD-12002/05/20-COFEPOSA dated 05.06.2020 (hereinafter referred to as the "Detention Order") issued against the petitioner by Respondent No. 2-Joint Secretary, COFEPOSA, Government of India under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as "COFEPOSA ACT"). The Respondent Authorities have not been able to execute the Detention Order prior to, and even after filing of the present writ petition. The Petitioner has, thus, not yet been served with either the Detention Order, or the Grounds of Detention, or the Relied upon Documents.
Brief Factual Matrix
2. On the night of 1st February, 2019, on the basis of certain specific intelligence that items, such as drones, gold and cigarettes would be smuggled in commercial quantities, one Mr. Gaganjot Singh and one Mr. Gurpreet Singh were interrupted at the IGI Airport upon their arrival from overseas. Contraband items such as drones, foreign branded cigarettes etc were recovered from both of them. On being questioned about the items, Mr. Gaganjot Singh admitted that he along with Mr. Gurpreet had bought the items to sell in the Indian market and gain profits, and revealed that his brother (Petitioner herein) would also be arriving with other people via the connecting flight no. KU 381 from Kuwait to Delhi, smuggling similar contraband items into the Indian Territory. Consequently, on the intervening night of 01.02.19 and 02.02.19, at around 1:30 am, the Petitioner and certain other passengers, namely, Amarjeet Singh, Saurabh Chopra and Sumit Verma arrived at IGI Airport, from Dubai by Kuwait Airways flight No. KU381. While the Petitioner and other passengers were collecting their suitcases from the conveyer belt, the Petitioner was taken to Customs Arrival Hall at IGI Airport, New Delhi. A detailed examination of the bags belonging to the petitioner was conducted, from which the following items were recovered:
ii. Boarding Pass of Flight No. KU 381 dated 01.02.2019 (Kuwait to Delhi) having seat No. 2H;
iii. Indian Passport No. Z5317414 issued on 16.01.2019.;
iv. One Vivo Y53 Mobile Phone having Vodafone Sim No. 8860253525 as disclosed by Pax;
v. AED 300/-
vi. 02 bottles of Chivas Regal 12 YO whisky.
vii. Personal effect-old and used
3. After effecting recoveries, a Panchnama was prepared and total value of Benson & Hedges cigarettes recovered from the Petitioner was Rs. 7,14,000/- (Seven Lakh Fourteen Thousand Rupees only). The total value of the recovered and seized goods from these four passengers was calculated to be Rs. 1,09,74,500/-.
4. On 2nd February, 2019, the Statements of the Petitioner, along with others were recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner claims that his statement given on 2nd February, 2019 was self-incriminating in nature, and given under force and coercion. As per the Arrest Memo, the Petitioner was arrested on 3rd February 2019 at 10:15 pm, whereas the petitioner claims that he along with co-accused persons had been illegally detained since the intervening night of 1st-2nd February, 2019.
5. Vide order dated 04.02.19, the bail applications of the petitioner along with co-accused persons were dismissed by Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Court, and they were remanded to judicial custody till 5th February, 2019. Their judicial custody was further extended to 19th February, 2019, vide order dated 05.02.19. The Petitioner retracted his statement recorded on 2nd February, 2019, vide letter dated 11.02.19.
6. The proposal for de
Licil Antony Vs. State of Kerala & Anr.
Rajinder Arora versus Union of India
Union of India v. Muneesh Suneja
Rajinder Arora v. Union of India (2006) 4 SCC 796: (2006) 2 SCC (Cri) 418
T.A. Abdul Rahman v. State of Kerala (1989) 4 SCC 741: 1990 SCC (Cri) 76
M. Ahamedkutty v. Union of India (1990) 2 SCC 1: 1990 SCC (Cri) 258
Mr. Mahajan on T.A. Abdul Rahman vs. State of Kerala
Additional Secretary to Government of India and Others Vs. Smt. Alka Subhash Gadia and Anr.
Deepak Bajaj v. State of Maharashtra and Another
State of Maharashtra & Ors. v. Bhaurao Punjabrao Gawande
Sayed Taher Bawamiya v. Jt. Secy. to the Govt. of India (2000) 8 SCC 630 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 56
The court reaffirmed that unexplained delays in preventive detention orders can sever the essential link between the alleged activities and the need for detention.
Illegally smuggling of gold - Detention order confirmed - Interim order not to execute order of detention was obtained and lapse of time live link was snapped - No live link between prejudicial activ....
Unexplained delays in executing detention orders undermine their validity, establishing the need for a timely link between grounds for detention and execution.
Quash of Detention order - Delay in passing detention order - There is nothing in Section 3 of COFEPOSA or in scheme of Act, which suggests that the especially empowered officer must act only on rece....
Quash of Detention order - Delay in passing detention order - There is nothing in Section 3 of COFEPOSA or in scheme of Act, which suggests that the especially empowered officer must act only on rece....
The Detaining Authority must act independently and with an open mind, and should not prejudge the issue even before considering the materials produced before him by the sponsoring authority. There sh....
Section 7 of the COFEPOSA Act may be beneficially quoted - Powers in relation to absconding persons If the appropriate Government has reason to believe that a person in respect of whom a detention or....
Action under Section 7 of COFEPOSA Act is not mandatory, failure to take action under section gives scope for doubt regarding assertion that detenu had absconded or concealed himself to avoid arrest.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.