2019 (5) TMI 931

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as "COFEPOSA Act") by the Deputy Secretary (Home) against the petitioner on account of the alleged contravention of the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. The brief facts of the present case are that one Mr. Rajesh Gulati was intercepted by the Customs authorities at the Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi on 05th July, 2001 and a number of mobile phones were seized from him. Mr. Rajesh Gulati gave a statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 implicating his brother-in-law i.e. the petitioner. However, when Mr. Rajesh Gulati was produced before the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, he retracted....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....states that vide order dated 28th June, 2007 passed by Joint Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, a revision application filed by the petitioner against order dated 12th January, 2007 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi, was allowed and the order imposing penalty on the petitioner was set aside on the ground that he had neither admitted his involvement in the case nor was his involvement proved by the Department through other corroborative evidence. 8. He points out that the petitioner was earlier possessing a passport No.B0994443 in his name, but the same had expired in or about 2005 and the said passport had not been renewed. He states that the petitioner is currently not hold....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....MA, PMLA, NDPS, PBPT Act, at New Delhi and an interim order had been passed in petitioner's favour. 13. Having heard learned counsel for parties, this Court is in agreement with the learned counsel for respondent-Custom that the petitioner was aware of the detention order as he had made a representation to the Hon'ble Lieutenant Governor, Govt. of NCT of Delhi in 2005. 14. This Court is also in agreement with the contention of learned counsel for respondent-Customs that the detention order could not be executed against the petitioner because he had fled to USA and after coming to India had kept changing his residential addresses in Delhi, Ghaziabad and Dehradun. 15. However, as the petitioner had allegedly indulged in unlawful activity a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ly examined such a delay and afforded a tenable and reasonable explanation as to why such a delay has occasioned, when called upon to answer and further the court has to investigate whether the causal connection has been broken in the circumstances of each case." 16. Similarly, the Supreme Court in Saeed Zakir Hussain Malik vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2012) 8 SCC 233 has held as under:- "27. As regards the second contention, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, the delay in passing the detention order, namely, after 15 months vitiates the detention itself. The question whether the prejudicial activities of a person necessitating to pass an order of detention is proximate to the time when the order is mad....