Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 797 (BOM)

Mohd. Shakil Khan v. The State Of Maharashtra

2012-04-16

P.D.KODE, V.M.KANADE

body2012
Judgment : V.M. Kanade, J. 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. Matter is taken up for final hearing with the consent of parties. 2. By this Petition which is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Petitioner takes exception to the order of detention bearing No.PSA-1211/CR-53/SPL-3-(A) dated 25/10/2011 passed by Respondent No.2 – Detaining Authority. 3. Brief facts are as under:- 4. Petitioner is the uncle of one Nadeem Shaikh (hereinafter referred to as “the detenu”). On or about 25/10/2011, the impugned order of detention was issued by the Principal Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department under section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (For short “COFEPOSA Act”). 5. A copy of the detention order was served on the detenu on 29/10/2011 which contained the grounds of detention and, along with the said communication, list of documents was issued as accompaniment to the said communication, setting out the statements and documents which were purported to have been placed before the Detaining Authority and which were relied upon by the Detaining Authority. In the grounds of detention, it was mentioned that on 02/03/2011, the Customs Officer of the Air Intelligence Unit intercepted the detenu at the Arrival Hall, 2C, CSI Airport, Mumbai near the Exit Gate and on scrutiny of the Customs Gate Pass of the detenu, it was revealed that he had left the value of dutiable goods blank in the said Pass and after he was interrogated whether he was carrying any contraband/dutiable goods, the detenue answered in the negative. The Customs Officer in the presence of two independent witnesses opened the two checked in baggages and the dutiable goods were recovered which were totally valued at Rs 10,05,120/- provisionally and Rs 11,82,920/- finally which were seized under panchanama dated 03/03/2011. The statement of the detenu was recorded on 03/03/2011 under section 108 of the Customs Act and, thereafter, his further statements were recorded on 23/3/2011, 24/3/2011, 25/3/2011 and on 25/05/2011. The statement of the detenu was recorded on 03/03/2011 under section 108 of the Customs Act and, thereafter, his further statements were recorded on 23/3/2011, 24/3/2011, 25/3/2011 and on 25/05/2011. It was, therefore, alleged on the basis of his statements recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act that on 13 occasions he had brought goods worth Rs.20,000/- and had cleared himself without payment of duty as his stay abroad was 3 days or less and, therefore, he was required to pay duty on the goods, as free allowance was available only for Rs12,000/-. It was alleged that activities of the detenu were smuggling activities which fall under section 111(l) & (m) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Sponsoring Authority & Detaining Authority both have filed affidavit in reply. 6. Mrs. Ansari, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner challenged the order of detention on the following grounds:- “(i) That the order of detention was not issued promptly and vigilantly and there was gross delay in passing the said order. (ii) That the order of detention could have been issued immediately after the Petitioner had been arrested and after his statement dated 03/03/2011 was recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act in which he had accepted ownership and non-declaration of the seized goods and he had not retracted his statement at any point of time and particularly when any adverse activity of the Petitioner had not come to the notice of the authorities after he was released on bail till the date on which he was served with the order of detention. (iii) That the grounds of detention are not proximate to the alleged prejudicial activities on the basis of which the order of detention had been issued against the detenu. (iv) That there was delay in considering the representation. (v) That the detenu had brought dutiable goods and on earlier occasions also dutiable goods were brought by him and on account of non-declaration of dutiable goods, on the date on which he was arrested the authorities had imposed a fine which was paid by him and he was allowed to take away the goods and, therefore, the Petitioner could have been easily dealt with by the law of the land for violation of Baggage Rules or violation of Customs Act and, for that purpose, it was not necessary to pass the order of detention. (vi) That the Petitioner had never brought prohibited goods. (vii) That there was clear non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority while passing the order of detention”. 7. On the other hand, the learned APP appearing on behalf of the State took us through the affidavit-in-reply of the Sponsoring Authority and the Detaining Authority & submitted that there was no delay in either issuing the order of detention or in considering the representation of the Petitioner. He submitted that the explanation had been given by the Detaining Authority and, therefore, on the ground of delay, no case was made out for quashing the impugned order. 8. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner relied upon the following judgments in support of her arguments on the following points viz (i) Delay in issuing detention order, (ii) goods seized are not prohibited & there is no restriction for bringing the said goods into India and (iii) Delay in considering representation. (i) Delay in issuing detention order: (1) T.A. Abdul Rahman vs. State of Kerala and others ( AIR 1990 SC 225 (Paras 6 and 7) (2) Issac Babu vs. Union of India and another (1990) 4 SCC 135 ) Adishwar Jain vs. Union of India and Another (2007) 1 SCC (Cri) 464) (Paras 5, 6 & 8) (3) V.C. Mohan vs. Union of India and Others (2002 SCC (Cri) 648 (Paras 8, 9 and 10) (4) Mohammad Bilal Yunus Saleh vs. The State of Maharashtra (Unreported Judgment of the Bombay High Court dated 23/4/2009 delivered in Criminal Writ Petition No.2556 of 2008). (Sub-para 2 of para 4 and para 6) (ii) Goods seized are not prohibited and there is no restriction for bringing the said goods into India (1) Rekha vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2011) 5 SCC 244 (Paras 5, 13, 15, 33 & 35) (2) Moulana Shamshunnisa vs. Additional Chief Secretary (Unreported Judgment of the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.2391, 2392 of2010). (3) Yumman Ongbi Lembi Leima vs. State of Manipur and Ors(Unreported Judgment of the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.26/2012 (Paras 13, 15 and 16) (iii) Delay in considering Representation: (1) Julia Jose Mavely vs. Union of India ( AIR 1992 SC 139 = 1991 AIR SCW 2835 (Paras 2, 3 and 5) (2) Rajammal vs. State of T.N and Another (1999) 1 SCC 417 (Paras 3, 8, 9 and 10) (3) Harshala Santosh Patil vs. State of Maharashtra and Others (2007) 1 SCC (Cri) 680) (4) Sutar Pramod Somnath vs. The State of Maharashtra and others (Unreported Judgment of the Bombay High Court dated 15/6/2007 delivered in Criminal Writ Petition No.2505 of 2006. (Paras 8, 10 and 11) 9. The learned APP appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, relied upon the following judgments in support of his arguments (1) Kamarunnissa vs. Union of India and Anoter (1991) 1 SCC 128 (Para 7) (2) Senthamilselvi vs State of T.N. and Another (2006) 5 SCC 676 (Para 6) (3) Vinod K. Chawla vs. Union of India and Others (2006) 7 SCC 337 (paras 13 and 14) (4) Sayed Abulala vs. Union of India and Others (2007) 15 SCC 208 (Paras 12 and 13) (5) D. Anuradha vs. Joint Secretary and Another (2006) 5 SCC 142 (Paras 15, 17, 19 & 20) (6) Rajendrakumar Natvarlal Shah vs. State of Gujarat and Others (1988) 3 SCC 153 (Para 12) He also relied upon the unreported Judgment of this Court in Shamsher Singh S/o. Balwinder Singh vs. The State of Maharashtra and others7 (paras 6, 12 to 19). 10. After having heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and the learned APP appearing on behalf of the State at length, we are of the view that there is much substance in the submissions made by the learned 7 Judgment in Criminal W.P.No.2188/2011 decided on 11/10/2011 Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner on the point of delay in issuing the order of detention and on the point of non-application of mind by the Detaining Authority. So far as the first ground of delay in issuing the order of detention is concerned, it is necessary to see the chronology of events. The Customs Officer had seized the goods at the Airport on 02/03/2011. It is an admitted position that the said goods are dutiable goods. So far as the first ground of delay in issuing the order of detention is concerned, it is necessary to see the chronology of events. The Customs Officer had seized the goods at the Airport on 02/03/2011. It is an admitted position that the said goods are dutiable goods. It is also admitted that detenu was arrested on 03/03/2011 and prior to his arrest he had never been arrested, though he had travelled on 21 earlier occasions. The detenu was released on bail on 04/03/2011. The statements of detenu were recorded on 03/03/2011, 23/03/2011, 24/03/2011, 25/3/2011 and 25/05/2011. In his first statement dated 03/03/2011, the detenu had admitted that he had travelled on 22 earlier occasions and that he used to take spices from India which are not prohibited to Hongkong and he used to sell spices there and bring dutiable goods upto the permitted amount below Rs 25,000/-and on the date on which his goods were seized, on that date since the goods were given on credit, he had brought those dutiable goods above Rs 25,000/-. He also admitted that he used to sell dutiable goods which were brought by him & earned profit of Rs 5000/- to rs 10,000/-per trip. This statement was not retracted by the detenu in his subsequent statements. Thereafter, after a lapse of about three months i.e. on 30/08/2011, show-cause notice was issued to the detenu. Reply was given to the said show-cause notice on 19/09/2011 and the impugned order of detention was passed on 25/10/2011. It was submitted that, therefore, there was delay of about 9 months from the date of the incident & after his release on bail and five months after his last statement was recorded and the show-cause notice was issued almost after two months after his last statement was recorded. 11. In the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Sponsoring Authority so far as the ground of delay is concerned it is stated that after the goods were detained, samples were drawn and sent for valuation and examination report was received on 21/05/2011. It is stated that only after ascertaining the active role of the detenu in smuggling of goods, the detention order was issued and, therefore, there was no delay. It is stated that only after ascertaining the active role of the detenu in smuggling of goods, the detention order was issued and, therefore, there was no delay. It is further stated in the affidavit that the propsoal for detention was sent by his office on 23/06/2011 to the Screening Committee and the meeting of the Screening Committee was held on 04/08/2011 since the office of the Screening Committee was shifted from Lower Parel to Worli and after the meeting was held, a letter dated 05/08/2011 was sent by the Screening Committee granting approval to the proposal which was received on 10/08/2011 and it was forwarded on 12/08/2011 to the Detaining Authority. It is further submitted that after the approval was granted by the Screening Committee, further statement of the detenu was recorded on 16/08/2011 and show-cause notice was issued on 30/08/2011. Then on 14/09/2011, a letter was sent enclosing further documents and the show-cause notice was sent for consideration by the Detaining Authority. Then on 20/09/2011, a letter was issued from Home Department calling for information on various points and on the same date i.e on 20/09/2011 a note was forwarded to Investigation Cell calling for the information as required by the Detaining Authority. On 11/10/2011, reply was received from the Investigation Cell regarding the information which was sought for by the Detaining Authority. Reply was given to the said letter dated 07/09/2011 from the Home Department and the information called for by the said letter was forwarded to the Detaining Authority and, thereafter, the order of detention was passed on 25/10/2011. It is further stated in the reply that the Detaining Authority had passed the impugned order of detention after screening all the papers contained in the proposal and time was spent for better verification of the material placed before the said Authority in the form of proposal for detention. It is further stated that the Detaining Authority had relied on confessional statements of the detenu given voluntarily under section 108 of the Customs Act. Then it is mentioned in the affidavit that between 04/03/2011 till the date when the order of detention was passed, 76 days were holidays and, therefore, the said holidays should be excluded from the period of 9 months. 12. Then it is mentioned in the affidavit that between 04/03/2011 till the date when the order of detention was passed, 76 days were holidays and, therefore, the said holidays should be excluded from the period of 9 months. 12. The Detaining Authority has also filed affidavit-in-reply and in its reply, she has stated that the proposal for preventive detention was forwarded by the Sponsoring Authority by its letter dated 12/08/2011. The scrutiny note was submitted on 24/08/2011 which was endorsed by the Under Secretary on the same day and the Deputy Secretary endorsed it on 25/08/2011. The information was called for by the Detaining Authority on 30/08/2011 and the letter was sent on 07/09/2011. Further information was received by the Detaining Authority on 15/09/2011 and it was processed by the Assistant on 17/09/2011 and it was endorsed by the Under Secretary on 23/09/2011. Certain queries were raised by her and the report was received on 17/10/2011 and the final order came to be issued on 25/10/2011. 13. In our view, after taking into consideration the chronology of events and the reply given by the Sponsoring Authority and Detaining Authority, there is gross delay in issuing the order of detention. It has to be noted that the statement of the detenu was first recorded on 03/03/2011 and, thereafter, his subsequent statements were recorded upto May, 2011. The detenu had accepted in his first statement itself that he had brought dutiable goods upto Rs 25,000/-on the previous 22 occasions and on the last occasion since he had received credit he had brought these goods above Rs 25,000/-. This statement had not been retracted at any point of time. In spite of this, the Sponsoring Authority submitted the proposal for detention almost after a lapse of five months by its letter dated 12/08/2011 and the Detaining Authority passed the order two months thereafter. The legal position in respect of delay in securing arrest of the detenu has been summarized in T.A. Abdul Rahman vs. State of Kerala and others ( AIR 1990 SC 225 ). Similarly, in Issac Babu vs. Union of India and another (1990) 4 SCC 135 ), the Apex Court held that the explanation for the delay that investigation took five months to complete and thereafter time was taken for processing the records for issuance of show-cause notice was not satisfactory and, therefore, delay vitiated the order. Similarly, in Issac Babu vs. Union of India and another (1990) 4 SCC 135 ), the Apex Court held that the explanation for the delay that investigation took five months to complete and thereafter time was taken for processing the records for issuance of show-cause notice was not satisfactory and, therefore, delay vitiated the order. Similarly, in Adishwar Jain vs. Union of India and Another (2007) 1 SCC (Cri) 464), the Supreme Court observed that a lapse of four months between the proposal for detention and order of detention was not explained and, therefore, the Apex Court set aside the order of detention. The Apex Court in V.C. Mohan vs. Union of India (2002 SCC (Cri) 648) had observed that though the incident took place on 24/7/2000 and other important documents had come into existence immediately thereafter, the Detaining Authority passed the order of detention on 1/3/2001 & during this period the detenu, admittedly, did not indulge in any illegal activity and, therefore, it was held that in the contextual facts, the Detaining Authority had failed to apply its mind as regards the issue of unreasonable delay in passing the order of detention. In our view, the ratio of these judgments of the Apex Court is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. The detenu was arrested on 3/3/2011. He was released on bail on 04/03/2011. In his first statement dated 3/3/2011 which was recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act, he had admitted having brought dutiable goods above the limit of Rs 25,000/-on 02/03/2011. This fact was not retracted by him in his subsequent statements. The Sponsoring Authority, therefore, had sufficient time to forward his proposal and, therefore, in this contextual background, delay caused of about 9 months has not been satisfactorily explained by the Detaining Authority and, therefore, on this ground alone the order of detention is liable to be set aside. This fact was not retracted by him in his subsequent statements. The Sponsoring Authority, therefore, had sufficient time to forward his proposal and, therefore, in this contextual background, delay caused of about 9 months has not been satisfactorily explained by the Detaining Authority and, therefore, on this ground alone the order of detention is liable to be set aside. Reliance was placed by the learned APP appearing on behalf of the State on the following judgments of the Apex Court in Kamarunnissa (1991) 1 SCC 128 ) (supra) [para 7], Senthamilselvi (2006) 5 SCC 676 ) (supra) [para 6], Vinod K. Chawla (2006) 7 SCC 337 ) (supra) [paras 13 & 14], Sayed Abulala (2007) 15 SCC 208) (supra) [Paras 12 and 13], D. Anuradha (2006) 5 SCC 142 (supra) [Paras 15, 17, 19 & 20],Rajendrakumar Natvarlal Shah (1988) 3 SCC 153 (supra) [Para 12] and also on the unreported Judgment of this Court in Shamshe Singh S/o. Balwinder Singh (Judgment in Criminal W.P.No.2188/2011 decided on 11/10/2011) (supra) (paras 6, 12 to 19). There cannot be any dispute regarding the ratio laid down in the said judgments relied upon by the learned APP appearing on behalf of the State. However, as has been held in Kamarunnissa (Supra), the question of delay has to be answered in the facts and circumstances of each case & similarly while deciding the said issue whether delay is caused or not and whether proper explanation has been given also would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The Apex Court in the facts of the said case came to the said conclusion that the delay had been explained satisfactorily. Similarly in Senthamilselvi (supra), the Apex Court, after having examined the explanation, came to the conclusion that the delay had been explained satisfactorily and in para 6 of the said judgment it has been observed as under:- “”6 …............... the factual scenario indicated above indicates that the representation was dealt with utmost expedition. There can be no hard-and-fast rule as to the measure of reasonable time and each case has to be considered from the facts of the case and if there is no negligence or callous inaction or avoidable red tapism on the facts of a case, the Court would not interfere. There can be no hard-and-fast rule as to the measure of reasonable time and each case has to be considered from the facts of the case and if there is no negligence or callous inaction or avoidable red tapism on the facts of a case, the Court would not interfere. It needs no reiteration that it is the duty of the Court to see that the efficacy of the limited, yet crucial, safeguards provided in the law of preventive detention is not lost in mechanical routine, dull casualness and chill indifference, on the part of the authorities entrusted with their application. When there is remissness, indifference or avoidable delay on the part of the authority, the detention becomes vulnerable. That is not the case at hand. It may be noted that the writ petition was filed on 22-12-2005, even before the order of rejection was served. That being so the detenu cannot make grievance that the State had not explained the position as to how his representation was dealt with.” Thus in Senthamilselvi (supra) also, on facts, the Apex Court came to the conclusion that the delay was explained satisfactorily. In Vinod K. Chawla (supra) also, on facts, explanation given was considered and same is the case in respect of other judgments on which the reliance is placed by the learned APP appearing on behalf of the State. 14. The second ground on which the order of detention is being challenged is that there was non-application of mind on part of the Detaining Authority in passing the order of detention. In our view, there is much substance in the submission made by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. In the present case, detenu was arrested on 03/03/2011. After his two checked-in-bags were opened in the presence of two independent witnesses it revealed that he did not make any declaration regarding value of the dutiable goods in his Customs Gate Pass. It is an admitted position that the goods which were found in these two bags were dutiable goods and not contraband goods or prohibited goods. The valuation of the said goods was made and it was found that the goods were valued at Rs.11,82,920/-. It is an admitted position that the goods which were found in these two bags were dutiable goods and not contraband goods or prohibited goods. The valuation of the said goods was made and it was found that the goods were valued at Rs.11,82,920/-. The penalty was also imposed for non-declaration and even in respect of his earlier visits to Hongkong in view of the admission given by him in his statement that he had travelled on 22 occasions earlier & had taken spices from India and sold them in Hongkong & had brought dutiable goods below the limit of Rs 25,000/-. In view of this statement in para 10 of the communication it is observed as under:- “10 On 13 occasions you had brought goods word Rs 20,000/- and cleared yourself without payment of duty. However your stay abroad was 3 days or less. Hence you were required to pay duty on the goods as the Free Allowance was available only for Rs 12,000/-” In view of this violation of Baggage Rules, additional penalty was imposed and the Petitioner was permitted to take away the goods after payment of duty. From the aforesaid facts, it is abundantly clear that for the said violation of the Baggage Restriction Rules, for non-declaration of the goods and for non-payment of customs duty, the detenu could have been tried under the ordinary law and, there was no need to pass the order of preventive detention and that too after a lapse of 9 months during which period the detenu had not come to the adverse notice of the Customs Authorities and, therefore, the Detaining Authority did not consider whether this was a case fit for detention when, in fact, the detenu could have been dealt with under the ordinary law of the land for violation of Baggage Rules and or under section 111 (l)(m) of the Customs Act. In our view, therefore, on this ground also, the order of detention is liable to be set aside. 15. In the Result Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). Rule is made absolute accordingly.