TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (5) TMI 289
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f. The said 65 consignments had simply disappeared. The role of the Petitioner, while posted at the Import Counter, thus came under suspicion. The case against the Petitioner is that the Petitioner knowingly manipulated the clandestine removal of five out of sixty-five consignments from the Air Cargo Complex, IGI Airport, New Delhi by generating Bank Challan-cum-Gate Pass (BCGP) and subsequently cancelling the same and taking advantage of his free access to the cargo terminal by virtue of his employment with AAI. 2. The Petitioner was arrested on 13th August, 1998 and released on bail on 13th October, 1998. The residence of the Petitioner was searched on 14-8-1998 which is claimed to have yielded some documents pertaining to illegal/wrong generation and subsequent cancellation of BCGP with respect to one consignment. A criminal complaint of offence under Sections 132 and 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 was filed against the Petitioner on 11th June, 1999 and cognizance of which has been taken by the ACMM. A penalty of Rs. 10 lacs was imposed on the Petitioner under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act vide adjudication order dated 21st December, 1999. On the proposal of the Customs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er. The Petitioner also sought a writ of Mandamus to revoke the detention order under Section 11 of the Act. The senior counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the representation of the Petitioner has been rejected mechanically without giving any reason; that the detention order was liable to be revoked because the Petitioner had been subsequently exonerated by the Tribunal and which order had attained finality, reliance in this regard was placed on Mrs. Lekha Nandakumar v. Jt. Secretary to Govt. of India [2004 Cr.LJ 3797 (Ker.)]; that there was delay in disposal of representation of the Petitioner. It was further submitted that notwithstanding the dismissal of the earlier writ petition challenging the detention order and dismissal of the SLP, the Petitioner was in this petition again entitled to challenge the detention order dated 4-8-2000 on the ground of delay in issuance of the same after 17-6-1998 and in spite of entire investigation being complete on 15-12-1998 on which date show cause notice was issued to the Petitioner. Reliance in this regard was placed upon para 22 of Babu Singh v. State of UP (AIR 1978 SC 527) and Srikant v. District Magistrate Bijapur and Ors (2007) 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Judgment of Kerala High Court in Lekha Nandakumar case (supra), which was a post-detention matter and in which the detention order was quashed, inter alia, on the ground of delay in disposal of representation and no reason for rejection of representation being given, is misconceived at this stage. If we were to go into the question of whether there was delay in disposal of representation and whether reasons for rejection of representation were required to be furnished or existed or not, we would be expanding the scope of judicial review at pre-detention stage, beyond the scope of five grounds or species thereof laid down by the Apex court. We may also notice that a Division Bench of this court in Mansukh Chaggan Lal Bhatt v. UOI [(1994) 56 DLT 372] has held that the order of rejection of representation, which is communicated to the affected party need not contain the reasons for refusing to revoke the detention order, though it is necessary for the concerned Authority to record reasons in its file and which can be seen by the court. The view of the Kerala High Court is thus not the view of this court. 11. The Full Bench of this court in Mansukh Chaggan Lal Bhatt v. UOI (1995 Crl.L....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ure at the instance of the Petitioner, of no prosecution having been launched against the Petitioner. 15. The Apex Court in UOI v. Amrit Lal Manchanda [(2004) 3 SCC 75] has laid down that : "15 Cases involving challenges to orders of detention before and after execution of the order stand on different footings. Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. 17. Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases. Disposal of cases by blindly placing reliance on a decision is not proper. 18. The following words of Lord Denning in the matter of applying precedents have become locus classicus : "Each case depends on its own facts and a close similarity between one case and another is not enough because even a single significant detail may alter the entire aspect. In deciding such cases, one should avoid the temptation to decide cases (as said by Cardozo) by matching the colour of one case against the colour of another. To decide therefore, on which side of the line a case falls, the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....case and imposition/condonation of fine and/or penalty is the prerogative of the Settlement Commission and the application praying immunity from fine, penalty and prosecution matters pertain to the jurisdiction of the Settlement Commission; the revocation of the detention order issued in respect of the detenu is a different issue and not governed by provisions of Section 127F(2) of the Customs Act. The Apex Court held that the immunity granted by the Settlement Commission from fine, penalty and prosecution under the provisions of the Customs Act and IPC have no bearing on the order of detention passed under the COFEPOSA Act. The matters of Settlement Commission and the COFEPOSA are altogether different issues, the orders of the respective authorities should not and cannot be binding or influencing each other. On the same parity, the order of the Tribunal in the present case should not have any bearing on the detention order. Thus, it cannot be said that there is anything blatantly wrong in the communications dated 12th July, 2005 and 26th August, 2005 also challenged in the present petition. The purpose of passing of the detention order is merely to prevent the detenu from continui....