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

2021 Supreme(Del) 828

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

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Siddharth Aggarwal, Arjun Dewan, Sowjahnya Shankaran and Shahryar Khan, Advocates
For the Respondents:Amit Mahajan, CGSC, Dhruv Pande, Gitesh Chopra, Kritagya Kumar Kait, Advocates, Satish Aggarwal, Sr. Standing Counsel, Gagan Vaswani and Vineet Sharma, Advocates

Headnote:

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:

    i. 112 Benson & Hedges Cigarette dandas kept in checked-in Fabric Zipper Baggage having tag No. KU 326359 and 108 Benson & Hedges Cigarette dandas kept in transparent polythene then wrapped with Black colour polythene (without any Tag) and one hand bag containing 18 Dandas of Benson & Hedges Cigarette (without tag);

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

            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
            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