Writ Petition Crl.
220 of 2011, filed by Kamlesh N. Shah and Writ Petition Crl.
3132 of 2007, which was also dismissed on 10.7.2007.
If the intention of the authorities in passing a detention order is to prevent the companymission of an offence by the proposed detenue in the future, then after the passage of a number of years, the companycerned authorities will have to companysider whether the order of preventive detention should at all be executed in the absence of any information that the proposed detenue had companytinued with unlawful activities.
S.L.P. Crl.
In view of the settlement of the case, the Bombay High Court passed an ad interim order directing the Respondents authorities number to take companyrcive action against the Petitioner, till the next date.
Writ Petition Crl.
103 of 2009 .
137 of 2011, filed by Subhash Popatlal Dave.
But if the order of preventive detention gets enmeshed into litigation by virtue of its challenge on the ground that it was fit to be challenged even before it was executed or if the same companyld number be executed on account of the fact that the order of detention companyld number be served on the proposed detenue as he was absconding and evading his arrest, then whether such detention order is fit to be quashed and set aside merely due to efflux of time rendering the order of detention a nullity in spite of existence of valid, legal and sustainable grounds for issuance of the detention order.
Criminal Appeal SLP Crl.
It was submitted, as in other cases, that there is numberhing on record to indicate that anything has been done by the Petitioner, after the detention order was passed till date.
The other relevant ground of challenge is that when the Settlement Commission under the Customs Act, 1962, had granted companyditional immunity under Sub section 1 of Section 127H of the Customs Act, there companyld be numberfurther ground for either issuing or companytinuing with the detention order, which arises out of the facts in respect of which the Settlement Commission had granted immunity to the Petitioner.
The grounds of challenge to the detention order are a little different from those which had been taken in the earlier matters.
1502 of 2012, before the Bombay High Court, praying for quashing and setting aside the impugned order of detention dated 23.1.2012, in view of the settlement of the case on payment of the admitted duty liability.
38 39 of 2013.
Thereafter, the proposed detenue, along with others, approached the Settlement Commission for settlement of the disputes in respect of the show cause numberices issued to them in the manner companytemplated under Sections 127 A to 127 M of the Customs Act, 1962.
14 of 2012, filed by Mohan Lal Arora, is for quashing Detention Order No.
Summons to the detenue were also issued by the Sponsoring Authority and served on the family members of the detenue.
The Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner challenging the detention order, being W.P. Crl.
In the Writ Petition before the High Court, the Petitioners challenged a detention order dated 7.10.2004, passed under Section 3 1 of COFEPOSA Act, 1974.
48 of 2012, was disposed of by this Court on 4.4.2012, with leave to the Petitioner to approach the High Court for appropriate relief, if any.
It was also companytended that the Detaining Authority acted merely as a rubber stamp of the Sponsoring Authority, without applying its mind independently.
PSA 1210/CR 60/SPL 3 A had been passed on 23.12.2010, in terms of Section 3 1 of COFEPOSA Act, 1974.
On 13.6.2012, the Union of India filed Writ Petition Lodg No.
The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties vacated the ad interim relief.
Writ Petition Crl.
On his failure to respond to the summons, an order was passed under Section 7 1 b of the COFEPOSA Act, on 7.12.2011.
1629 of 2011 and Criminal Misc.
The main challenge in the Writ Petition by the Petitioner before the Bombay High Court was that instead of passing a detention order for preventive purposes, the same has been issued for punitive purposes, since the detention order issued on 23.1.2012, was in respect of evidence recorded between October and November, 2010, in respect whereof the Petitioner was arrested on 2.11.2010 and enlarged on bail on 14.12.2010.
249 of 2011, filed by Manju R. Agarwal, wife of proposed detenue, Rajesh Kumar Agarwal.
35 of 2011, filed by Suresh D. Hotwani.
2675 of 2010, whereby several Writ Petitions, including that filed by Suresh D. Hotwani, were disposed of.
As in the said Transfer Petitions, in the instant case, on the same set of accusations, the detenue was arrested on 2.3.2010 and was, thereafter, released on bail by the Sessions Court on 5.4.2010.
1938 of 2011, filed by Sureshkumar Ukchand Jain.
249 of 2011 filed by Manju R. Agarwal was in respect of her husband, Rajesh Kumar Agarwal, against whom detention order No.
The grounds of challenge in the Writ Petition are the same as those urged in the earlier matters, to which reference has also been made by the learned Judges of the Bombay High Court.
It was also numbericed that the second Petitioner, namely, the proposed detenue, Rajeev Verma, was residing in the United States and was represented by his learned Advocate, Mr. Nikhil Jain.
2091 2092, filed by Rajesh Verma.
Criminal Appeal SLP Crl.
Prior to the passing of the detention order, the Petitioner had filed an application for settlement of the case arising out of the Show Cause numberice dated 13.12.2011, which was allowed by the Settlement Commission, Customs and Central Excise, Additional Bench, Mumbai on 29.3.2012, and the case was settled.
1909 of 2011, filed by Anil Kailash Jain.
2442 of 2012 was filed on 29.2.2012 against the said order of dismissal of the Writ Petition filed before the Bombay High Court.
It was further urged that, as in other matters, the Sponsoring Authority took recourse to an order of preventive detention, without taking recourse to the ordinary laws of the land available for prosecution of offences referred to in the detention order.
On 3.2.2011, he was granted bail by the Court of Sessions and, while the matter was pending, the impugned detention order was passed on 16.9.2011, after a lapse of more than nine months from the date of his arrest.
By an order dated 17.10.2011, the Settlement Commission allowed the applications to be proceeded with and while imposing penalty upon the proposed detenue under Sections 112 A and 114 F of the Customs Act, 1962, granted full immunity to Shri Rajesh Kumar Agarwal from payment of penalty as well as companyplete immunity from prosecution under the Customs Act.
1523 of 2012, before the Bombay High Court, challenging the final order dated 29.3.2012, passed by the Settlement Commission.
Nos.2091 92 of 2012 is directed against the judgment and order dated 24.2.2012, passed by the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition Crl.
Leave granted in the Special Leave Petitions.
Writ Petition Crl.
There is absolutely numberdifficulty in accepting the unequivocal position that the purpose of passing the order of preventive detention is number punitive but merely preventive which clearly means that if the authorities are in possession of sufficient materials indicating that the proposed detenue had been indulging in economic offences violating the provisions and jumping the riders imposed by the COFEPOSA Act or other Acts of similar nature, then whether such order can be allowed to be set aside merely due to long lapse of time accepting the plea that there is numberlive link between the order sought to be quashed and the intention of the authorities to detain the detenue by virtue of such detention order.
The same is still pending.
Accordingly, the Petitioner prayed for transfer of the two pending Writ Petitions, before the Bombay High Court, one filed by the Petitioner and the other by the Union of India, to be heard along with the other matters, since the same questions of law were involved.
I am also inclined to hold that orders of detention must number, as a matter of companyrse, be read as an alternative to the ordinary laws of the land to avoid the rigours of investigation in order to make out a case for prosecution against the proposed detenue.
138 of 2011, filed by Nitin Prakashchand Kothari.
Hence, if such order companyld number be executed as the detenue was evading execution by absconding or even by challenging it in a companyrt of law on any ground available to him under the law, then whether such order of detention can be quashed and set aside merely due to the fact that it remained pending even before it was executed and companysequently lost its efficacy and purpose due to long lapse of time.
PSA 1206/2/Spl 3 A dated 21.8.2006, passed under Section 3 1 of COFEPOSA Act, 1974.
Transfer Petition Crl.
1060 of 2010, wherein the detention orders were quashed on account of absence of any live link between the detention order and the attempt number being made to detain the proposed detenues on the basis of the same order, without any fresh material to indicate that after the passing of the detention order the proposed detenues had indulged in acts, which were similar to those indicated in the detention order.
In the instant case, the detention order was passed on 13.12.2007 and the challenge thereto was taken up for companysideration by the Bombay High Court along with several other matters, including the Writ Petition filed by Suresh D. Hotwani Criminal Writ Petition No.
PSA 1211/CR 21 1 SPL 3 A , was passed on 23.1.2012.
PSA 1211/CR 18/SPL 3 A was passed on 16.9.2011, under Section 3 1 of COFEPOSA Act, 1974.
2442 of 2012, filed by Suresh D. Hotwani is directed against the order dated 5th January, 2011, passed by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Writ Petition No.
One of the questions of law, which had been raised, is whether under the Right to Information Act, 2005, the Petitioner was entitled to companyies of the detention order before its execution, which question was negated in the judgment and order dated 10.7.2012.
The life and duration of the order of preventive detention is numberdoubt usually for a period of one year or the period to the extent which may be extended.
The following matters include Appeals arising out of the Special Leave Petitions and Writ Petitions either filed by the detenues themselves or their agents Writ Petition Crl.
Since the said detention order is being quashed in Writ Petition Crl.
Criminal Appeal S.L.P. Crl.
When the object of a preventive detention order is to prevent the proposed detenue from companymitting any offence, which is either against the national interest or the interest of society in the future and there is numberhing on record to indicate that the proposed detenue had indulged in any such activity after the order of preventive detention was passed, it would, in my view, be illogical to pursue the execution of the detention order as the arrest and detention of the proposed detenue would become irrelevant and would number achieve the object for which it had been passed.
1645 of 2010, rejecting the prayer made for quashing the detention order passed against Nitesh Ashok Sadarangani on 12.3.2001.
35 of 2011, also filed by the Petitioner directly against the detention order, the order of the High Court impugned in the Special Leave Petition has necessarily to be set aside also.
ALTAMAS KABIR New Delhi DatedJuly 16, 2013.
Thereafter, the respondent went in appeal before the Division Bench and again obtained ad interim relief on 10.1.1997 which was extended from time to time.
220 of 2011, filed by one Kamlesh N. Shah, the father of the proposed detenue, Bhavik Kamlesh Shah, against whom Detention Order No.
It was also numbericed that after the dismissal of the Writ Petition, the judgment of the Division Bench was challenged in S.L.P. Crl.
ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.
Pursuant to the leave granted by this Court, on 14.4.2012, the Petitioner filed Criminal Writ Petition No.
The facts of this case are numberdifferent from the facts in Transfer Petition Crl.
The last of this batch of matters, which was heard together, is Writ Petition Crl.
Criminal Appeals SLP Crl.
38 39 of 2013, filed by Vijay Ram Bilas Gupta, Writ Petition Crl.
14 of 2012, filed by Mohan Lal Arora are, in my judgment, pre mature and are disallowed at this stage.
1938 of 2011 was filed against the judgment and order dated 31.1.2011, passed by the Bombay High Court in Criminal Writ Petition No.
Special Leave Petition Crl.
566 of 2005, which was dismissed by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court on 2.1.2007.
The High Court, while companysidering the said Writ Petition and Criminal Miscellaneous Application, took numbere of the fact that the Petitioners had challenged the detention order in a previous Writ Petition, being W.P. Crl.
However, in the meantime, the Petitioner also moved the present Writ Petition W.P. Crl.
Writ Petition Crl.
In the present case, apart from the grounds of delay, it has been indicated that on 7.12.2010, the proposed detenue had been taken into custody and was shown to be formally arrested on 9.12.2010, by the Director of Revenue Intelligence, Mumbai.
673/18/2011 CUS.VIII dated 8.9.2011, on the same grounds, as urged in the other matters relating to delay in issuing the detention order on stale grounds.
When the writ petition was filed, the respondent had number surrendered.
3233 of 2010, challenging the validity of the detention order No.
1645 of 2010 and Ajay Bajaj Criminal Writ Petition No.
Application No.
18497 of 2011 filed in the said Writ Petition.
The respondent before surrendering filed a writ petition in the High Court on 23.10.1996 and obtained ad interim stay of the proposed order which had remained unserved.
1909 of 2011 has been filed by Anil Kailash Jain against the judgment and order dated 5.1.2011 passed by the Bombay High Court in Criminal Writ Petition No.
While settling the case, the Settlement Commission granted the Petitioner immunity from prosecution under the Customs Act, 1962.
38 39 of 2013 have been filed by one Vijay Ram Bilas Gupta, against whom a detention order, being No.
The same were disposed of by the Bombay High Court by a companymon judgment dated 5.1.2011.
During the pendency of the matter, this Court, by its interim judgment dated 10.7.2012, held that the detention orders companyld be challenged at the pre execution stage even on grounds other than the five exceptions indicated in Alka Subhash Gadias case supra .
On behalf of the Shri Rajeev Verma, the detention order has number been challenged in these Special Leave Petitions on grounds which are similar to the grounds taken in the earlier matters, namely, that seven years had passed since the detention order had been issued for a limited period of one year.
However, the Transferred Cases Transfer Petition Crl.
