Honble SHARMA, J.–Ishwar Dass Moolrajani, petitioner herein, has approached this Court with the prayer that his custody be declared illegal and a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus be issued directing release of the petitioner forthwith.

(2). As per the facts stated in the writ petition the petitioner has been engaged in the trade of manufacture and sale of wrist watches `ROCHEES known for low priced watches to cater the need of masses who cannot afford costly watches. The Custom Authorities acting on the false information and frivolous insinuations propagated by the business rivals, initiated inquiry which culminated in arrest of petitioner on July 24, 2006.

(3). It is averred by the petitioner that arrest of the petitioner as well as orders granting remand by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences) Jaipur City are per se violative of statutory mandate of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. The reasons as stated in writ petition are:-

IN REGARD TO ARREST:

(i) The arrest was made contrary to the pre-condition required under section 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act 1962 (for short `The Act). The provision of Section 135(1)(a) always apply in PRESENTI. Once assessment was officially made under section 17 of the Act, the same cannot be reassessed except in special circumstances and that too after following the statutory procedure. Import once assessed and cleared by customs authorities cannot be rendered illegal retrospectively.

(ii) Goods of the companies of petitioner cannot be treated as improperly imported goods defined in Section 2(25) of the Act. Section 111(m) of the Act can be invoked only at the time when goods are inspected before assessment of customs duty.

(iii) The statutory presumption under Section 17 of the Act read with section 114(e) of the Evidence Act stares in face of arrest.

(iv) The statutory estopple gets attracted and goods once assessed and cleared for home consumption cannot entail petitioners liberty for arrest under section 104 of the Act.

(v) Liability to confiscation under Section 122 of the Act is yet to be adjudged.

(vi) Mandatory notice under Section 28 of the Act before reopening assessment has not been issued as yet.

(vii) At the time of making arrest of the petitioner on July 24, 2006 K.S. Meena, Intelligence Officer DRI Jaipur (Respondent No. 2) had no reasons to believe that the petitioner was, in any way, guilty of offence under Section 135 of the Act.

(viii) The arrest of petitioner was unwarranted as the alleged inquiry was at the preliminary stage. Except wild suspicion, there was hardly any tangible material. Even suspicion was yet to be verified and it was practically in nebulous form.

IN REGARD TO REMANDS:

(i) The statutory requirements to be followed while granting remands were blatantly flouted.

(ii) The initial remand was granted without entertaining satisfaction regarding existence of adequate grounds to do so. Such mechanical grant of remand renders the custody illegal.

(iii) Whenever remand is granted in invalid exercise of power, the custody is rendered unlawful and remedy of Habeas Corpus gets attracted.

(iv) The remand of the petitioner in the instant case, was granted by Sh. Rajendra Kumar Bansal who had no jurisdiction to take cognizance for an offence punishable under Section 135 of the Act.

(v) While granting second remand on August 8, 2006 the Learned Magistrate completely ignored the statutory mandate of Section 167(2)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner was not produced before the Magistrate and in his absence remand order was passed.

(vi) The learned Magistrate while granting second remand on August 8, 2006 did not care to record his satisfaction regarding existence of adequate grounds for further grant of remand. Non- recording of adequate ground and fact of satisfaction there about, renders the remand illegal. The custody consequently becomes illegal.

(vii) Granting of remand under Section 167 CrPC is very much a part of fairness in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document