Delhi High Court Dismisses Petitions Challenging Detention Order Under COFEPOSA Act 

Must Read

Delhi HC: Mens Rea Essential Before Passing an Order U/S 14b of EPF Act

  In the matter of M/s Durable Doors and Windows v APFC, Gurugram, the bench allowed the Petitioner's appeal holding...

Delhi HC: Language of Statement and Testimony of Complainant Need Not Be Identical

A single-judge bench of J. Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court upheld the accused's conviction in Kailash @...

COVID Results Shall Be Conveyed To the Person Within 24 Hours: Delhi High Court

The order has come in a writ petition moved by Rakesh Malhotra. The Petitioner herein seeks to ramp up...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside the Order of the Trial Court in the Chief Secretary Assault Case

In the case of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Anr. V. State NCT of Delhi, Mr.Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an...

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work,...

Follow us

In the case of Mohd Nashruddin Khan vs Union Of India & Ors, the relief sought by each of the petitioners was to seek quashing of the Writ Petition (CRL). Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar dismissed these petitions leaving the parties to bear their respective costs. Interim orders stand vacated. 

Brief Facts

The case is that the Mohd Nashruddin Khan (MNK) is an NRI engaged in the business of trading in gold jewellery in the UAE. On 14.02.2019, the petitioner extended an invitation to M/s. Its My Name Pvt. Ltd. (IMNPL) for participation in a jewellery exhibition at United Arab Emirates (UAE) from 18.02.2019 to 30.03.2019. Amit Pal Singh (APS), the petitioner in W.P.(CRL) 1019/2020 – an employee of IMNPL, He was detained at the exit gate. APS was issued a notice under Section 102 of the Customs Act alleging invasion of customs duty on i.e. 24.04.2019. the petitioner MNK arrived at IGI Airport separately. The petitioner MNK was also detained. Gopal Gupta, the petitioner in the present petition, who is a Chartered Accountant, was also arrested. The petitioners also disclosed that an application was moved against the respondents under Section 340 Cr.P.C. for fabricating the records, tampering of documents and for other wrongdoings. The petitioners disclosed that W.P. (Crl) 173/2019 was filed by IMNPL seeking quashing of the entire investigation and for release of goods.

Arguments Before the Court

Learned counsels have advanced common arguments in all these three petitions, apart from pointing out certain specific features of each of these cases. Mr Mahajan submitted that the execution of the Detention Orders is a task which is assigned to the local authorities and it is neither the Sponsoring Authority nor the Detaining Authority, who are tasked with the responsibility of serving the Detention Order. In respect of the Detention Orders issued by the Detaining Authority, reports were called from the Executing Authorities. 

Mr Vikram Chaudhri learned senior counsel for the petitioners is the impugned Detention W.P.(CRL). Orders have been passed out of malafides both in fact and in law. All the petitioners were illegally confined on 24.04.2019. Their statements were recorded under coercion and, only on 26.04.2019, they were produced before the learned Duty MM, though they should have been so produced within 24 hours of their being detained/ arrested. 

Mr Chaudhri submits that the allegation that MNK was not found at his address in District Mau, UP is equally specious. No information has been given at his counsel’s address and no summons have been issued to MNK after issuance of the Detention Order. Mr Chaudhri submitted that the respondents have attempted to shift the blame of non-execution of the Detention Orders on the Executing Authority while trying to protect the officers of DRI/Sponsoring Authority for their lapse in executing the Detention Order.

Court’s Decision

It was observed that that, firstly, the petitioners are not entitled to maintain these petitions because of their conduct of absconding and given the decision of the Supreme Court in Subhash Popatlal Dave, and even otherwise, the court did not find any merit in any of the grounds taken by the petitioners to assail the Detention Orders issued in respect of each of them under Section 3 of the COFEPOSA Act at the pre-execution/ detention stage. Accordingly, the court dismissed petitions leaving the parties to bear their respective costs. Interim orders stand vacated.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Delhi HC: Mens Rea Essential Before Passing an Order U/S 14b of EPF Act

  In the matter of M/s Durable Doors and Windows v APFC, Gurugram, the bench allowed the Petitioner's appeal holding that mens rea is an...

Delhi HC: Language of Statement and Testimony of Complainant Need Not Be Identical

A single-judge bench of J. Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court upheld the accused's conviction in Kailash @ Balli v State. The bench...

COVID Results Shall Be Conveyed To the Person Within 24 Hours: Delhi High Court

The order has come in a writ petition moved by Rakesh Malhotra. The Petitioner herein seeks to ramp up testing facilities in Delhi.   Facts of...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside the Order of the Trial Court in the Chief Secretary Assault Case

In the case of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Anr. V. State NCT of Delhi, Mr.Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has set aside the 24.07.2019 Order...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an order restraining the manufacturing, marketing,...

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work, except the drinking water component...

There Can Be No Leniency Shown To Appellant Who Pleaded To Reduce Sentence: Delhi High Court

Facts On 25.2.2016 the victim’s sister who was 13 years old was present with her sister who was 2 years old (victim) at their home....

Violation of Executive Instructions Cannot Be Sole Ground to Invalidate Transfer Orders: Tripura High Court

In Dr Bithika Choudhury vs the State of Tripura & Ors., a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S.G. Chattopadhyay...

Case Regarding Anticipatory Bail, Applicant May Be Released Imposing Suitable Conditions: Gujarat High Court

A Single-Judge Bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Dr Justice A.P. Thakur had been hearing submissions of the Applicant to release him...

Proof of Infliction of Fatal Injury Not Mandatory for Conviction Under Section 307, IPC: Tripura High Court

In the case of Mamin Miah vs the State of Tripura, a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S....

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -