The court's jurisdiction to review preventive detention orders pre-execution is limited, particularly when the proposed detenue is absconding, as allowing such challenges undermines the purpose of preventive detention laws.

JUDGMENT :

NAVIN CHAWLA, J.

1. The present Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the quashing of the detention order bearing F. No. PD12002/02/2017- COFEPOSA dated 02.01.2018, issued by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, COFEPOSA Unit, Central Economic Intelligence Bureau in the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India (hereinafter referred to as the 'impugned order') under Section 3(1) of the CONSERVATION OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE AND PREVENTION OF SMUGGLING ACTIVITIES ACT , 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the 'COFEPOSA Act'), by which the petitioner was ordered to be detained and kept in Tihar Jail, New Delhi.

2. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 12.12.2019 passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM), Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in Case no. 14556/2018, titled Customs v. Vinod Kumar Pathror, declaring the petitioner as a Proclaimed Offender pursuant to proceedings initiated under Section 7 (1) (a) of the COFEPOSA Act.

3. The challenge to the detention order is admittedly at the pre- execution stage, as the petitioner has not been taken into custody pursuant to the impugned order.

CASE OF THE RESPONDENTS

4. The background of the present petition is that the Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT), Ministry of Commerce issues licenses to exporters under various schemes as an incentive to them for making exports and increasing the quantum of the same. The licenses are also called “scrips” and carry a monetary value. The scrips can be utilized for payment of customs duty or for the import of any item which is in the Open General List (OGL), that is, freely importable. These scrips are also tradable commodities by themselves in accordance with the applicable policy.

5. It is the case of the respondents that on 09.09.2015, during a scrutiny of licenses/scrips, certain discrepancies were detected between the data maintained by the DGFT and the Customs Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) system. An alert was thereafter inserted in the system in respect of certain parties and Custom House Agents (CHAs). Upon further scrutiny, it was gathered that the licenses/scrips issued by the DGFT were fraudulently amended to enhance their value after being registered against the actual value. These licenses were mainly used by various importers of paper by utilizing the services of one common CHA, namely M/s Kirti Cargo.

6. On the basis of the material gathered during investigation, summons dated 15.09.2015 were issued to Shri Ramesh Chadha, Proprietor of M/s Kirti Cargo, one Shri Sharafat Hussain, and the petitioner herein.

7. Several summons were thereafter issued to the petitioner on various dates, calling upon him to appear during the course of investigation, however, the petitioner failed to appear. A search was also conducted at the residential premises of the petitioner, wherein though no incriminating materials were found, the petitioner was not present at his premises, and upon asking the whereabouts of the petitioner from his family members, the wife and father of the petitioner informed the officers that the petitioner has not been residing with them for very long.

8. It is further the case of the respondents that in the course of investigation, it was gathered that the petit