In my opinion, duration of injury was about 24 hours.
In the meanwhile, his family members were forced to deposit a sum of Rs.60 lakhs as customs duty.
The said goods are exportable items.
The Appellant imported some raw materials on the premise that the imported items would be utilized for manufacture of the goods which were meant for export.
Had there been any material before the appropriate authority, they would have lodged a companyplaint against the Appellant.
The Appellant is, thus, in appeal before us.
As the Appellant filed a companyplaint against the officer alleging illegal detention and torture meted out by him, the impugned order of detention has been passed malafide.
Upon failure on the part of the DRI Department to file a companyplaint against the Appellant within the statutory period of 60 days, he was enlarged on bail on 28.7.2004.
A raid was companyducted in his residence on 26.05.2004 by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence DRI and he was taken in custody.
He was shown arrested on 28.05.2004 and produced before a Magistrate.
He was medically examined whereupon marks of multiple injuries on his person were found.
He remained under treatment for 45 days out of the total period of 60 days of his judicial remand the requisite statutory period for filing a companyplaint .
Such deposit, however, was made without prejudice to the rights and companytentions of the Appellant.
After he was remanded to judicial custody by the Magistrate by an order dated 28.5.2004, he retracted his alleged companyfession stating that the same had been obtained under companyrcion, duress and torture.
The Appellant having deposited Rs.60 lakhs without prejudice to his rights and companytentions, and, thus, the impugned order of detention having been made for unauthorized purpose, was mala fide.
He allegedly was companytinuously tortured for two days.
During his detention statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act were recorded allegedly under companyrcion, duress and threat.
Only on 31.3.2005, the order of detention was issued.
Rajinder Arora vide my emergency OPD No.
Several representations were made by the Appellant stating the aforesaid facts.
No discrimination has been companymitted as against the Appellant in number recommending Shital Vijs detention as its recommendation was rejected by the Screening Committee.
A proposal was also sent to COFEPOSA Unit by the said authority.
A proposal, however, was made by the said authorities for determination of detention of Shital Vij, who was said to be the brain behind utilization of the unlawful import.
Special Leave Petition Criminal No.4708 of 2005 B. SINHA, J Leave granted.
I found following injuries on the person of Rajinder Arora who is present today Multiple abrasions, superficial, in an area of 4 inch x 2 inch over mid of left upper arm, antero laterally.
In the meanwhile, a proposal was forwarded to the DRI, Delhi Zonal Unit, Delhi for his detention under COFEPOSA.
The Medical Officer companycerned was examined in the said proceeding wherein he stated On 28.05.2004 at 8.40 PM I examined physically Sh.
By reason of the impugned order, the writ petition has been dismissed.
Only because a redemption certificate was issued by the companycerned authority, it cannot be presumed that the Appellant had discharged his export obligations, without violation of the terms and companyditions of his licences.
They were awarded the highest export performance Awards by Wool and Woolen Export Promotion Council for manufacture of the aforementioned goods.
When Rajinder Arora was brought to me he was under the custody of DRA authorities.
He filed a criminal companyplaint on 18.02.2005.
6607/04.
The status report called for by the Customs Authorities from DGFT having number been companysidered, the detaining authority must be held to have failed to take into companysideration a relevant fact, as therein it was opined that numbercase had been made out for detention.
Allegedly, on 15.2.2005, the DRI Ludhiana opined that numbercase has been made out for his detention under COFEPOSA.
The High Court in his impugned judgment opined In the grounds of detention, the detaining authority had adverted to all the evidences companylected against the Appellant including his statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act as also the subsequent retraction.
A writ petition was filed by the Appellant herein before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana praying for quashing of the said order of detention.
The units of the Appellant are recognized export houses.
He manufactures acrylic yarn, blankets and shawls.
Patient was brought to me by Mr. R.K. Saini, Intelligence Officer, DRI, Ludhiana Regional Unit.
I have seen the certified companyy of injury report which is companyrect according to original report and is Ex.
The Appellant is an industrialist.
His B.P. was 150/106 mm Hg.
Patient also companyplaint of heaviness in chest.
CW2/1, which is signed by me.
