Anuj Bajaj vs The State Of Maharashtra on 13 August, 2008

                                       1
            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                                        
                    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION




                                                
                CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 678 OF 2008

                                                             DIST.: MUMBAI




                                               
    Anuj Bajaj,                                         ]       ...Petitioner
    Age 28 years, A-112, Derawala Nagar,                ]      (Brother of the
    Opposite Model Town, New Delhi 110 009              ]           detenu)




                                     
               Versus
                        
    1. The State of Maharashtra                         ]
    through the Additional Chief Secretary to           ]
                       
    the Government of Maharashtra,                      ]
    Home Department (Special), Mantralaya,              ]
    Mumbai 400032                                       ]
       

    2. Ms. Anna Dani,                                   ]
    the Principal Secretary (Appeals & Security),       ]
    



    Government of Maharashtra, Home Department,         ]
    Mantralaya, Mumbai 400032                           ]

    3. The Superintendent of Prison,                    ]





    Nasik Road Central Prison, Nasik Road,                            ]
    Maharashtra.                                        ]        ...Respondents.


    Mrs. A.M.Z. Ansari with Ms. Nasreen Ayubi for the Petitioner





    Mr. S.R. Borulkar, Public Prosecutor, with Mrs. S.D. Shinde,
    Additional Public Prosecutor, for the Respondents.


                                    CORAM:  B ILAL NAZKI
                                                           and
                                               A.A. KUMBHAKONI, JJ.

DATE : AUGUST 13, 2008
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Bilal Nazki, J.):-

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 13:41:15 :::
2

This petition has been filed by the brother of Shri Amit Bajaj,

who has been detained by an order dated 11th February, 2008 passed

by the Detaining Authority under the provisions of the Conservation of

Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974.

The Grounds of Detention were served on the detenu.

2.

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well

as the learned Public Prosecutor, and perused the record.

3. The attack on the detention by the learned counsel for the

petitioner is on three grounds: that there was delay in passing the Order

of Detention; secondly, it was contended that there was a vital

document (Nil Panchanama), which was not considered by the

Detaining Authority while passing the Order of Detention; and the third

ground was that it was a case of total non-application of mind by the

Detaining Authority.

4. Before going to these grounds of attack, we would quote from

the Grounds of Detention the brief history, as given by the Detaining

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 13:41:15 :::
3
Authority about this case:-

“2. Pursuant to an intelligence gathered by the officers of the
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Mumbai that goods
imported at Nhava Sheva port by certain Delhi based firms,

which are cleared without payment of Customs duty, by filing
Bills of Entry for Warehousing, are being diverted and sold in
the market, instead of being taken to the bonded warehouses
stated to be located in Haryana (Kundli, Rohtak, Faridabad,

etc.) for the purpose of storing. As a consequence, Government
was losing huge amount of Customs duty on such illegal

diversion and sale. It was also gathered that the import
consignments comprising of Copper Scrap, Brass Scrap, Zinc
Ingots, Tin Sheets, Chemicals, Dry Fruits, Betel Nut, Gambier,

Tiles, etc. were being imported and cleared in the name of some
Delhi based firms like M/s. Ankush Trading Co., M/s. Kajal
Creations Inc., M/s. Span International, M/s. Perfect Impex,
M/s. Ranbakura Brothers, M/s. Muskan Enterprises and

M/s. X-cellent Exim Overseas etc. and were being diverted in a
clandestine manner, as aforesaid.

3. Based on the above intelligence, discrete enquiries were made
through the concerned Central Excise Commissionerate for

verification of existence of bonded warehouses in the names of
the above-mentioned firms. It was reported by the concerned
Central Excise authority that no bonded warehouse in the name
of above said firms were in existence at the addresses provided.
Further, photocopies of ‘ Re-warehousing Certificates’ certifying

receipt and storage of the goods imported in the names of the
above said firms at the declared bonded warehouse, were sent
to the jurisdictional Central Excise authorities, for verifying
genuineness of the same. It was reported by the concerned
Central Excise authorities that the proper officer has issued no
such Certificates. The said ‘ Re-warehousing Certificates’ were
being submitted to the authorities in Bond Section of JNCH,
Nhava Sheva for getting the Bonds cancelled and release of
supporting Bank Guarantees, which were furnished at the time

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 13:41:16 :::
4
of filing of the Bills of entry for Warehousing. It was also

confirmed that no Ex-Bond Bills of Entry were filed for
clearance of the imported goods, in the names of the above said

firms.

4. Based on the above inputs, simultaneous actions were
initiated at Mumbai and Delhi on 29/03/2006. As per the

intelligence developed, the import consignments were cleared
from Nhava Sheva Port by CHAs M/s. P.H. Mehta & Co.,
M/s. D.M. Mehta & Bros., M/s. C.P. Mota &Co., and were
transported by M/s. Ambalal Bombay Roadways (ABR) from

the port to various upcountry destinations. Accordingly on
29/03/06 import documents pertaining to the aforesaid firms

were also taken over from the concerned CHAs.”

In this background, ultimately, an Order of Detention was passed

against several persons, including the detenu.

5. Counter-affidavit has been filed by the Detaining Authority. In

the first instance, we will go to the third ground of attack that it was a

case of total non-application of mind. Internal page 27 of the counter-

affidavit of the Detaining Authority stated that the detenu was involved in

prejudicial activities. It further said as under:-

“The Sponsoring Authority prepared the proposal of 13 persons
and forwarded it to the Screening Committee and after
approval of the Screening Committee, the sponsoring authority
forwarded the proposal of the detenu alongwith 12 persons to

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 13:41:16 :::
5
me, which was received in the office on 14.12.2006 and was

assigned to the Assistant. The said proposal was running into
about 7419 pages. Thereafter, the concerned Assistant after

carefully going through the papers, prepared a scrutiny note on
3.1.2007 and forwarded it to the Under Secretary. The Under
Secretary who gave his endorsement on the same day and
forwarded the same to the then Detaining Authority. The then

Detaining Authority endorsed it on 17.1.2007 and thereby
directed to call IO for discussion. Accordingly, the sponsoring
authority was communicated on 23.1.2007. The Investigating
Officer attended the office of the then Detaining Authority on

12.2.2007 and after discussion, the then detaining authority
directed him to submit the report. It is submitted that

accordingly the then Detaining Authority returned the file to
the Desk on 13.2.2007. During the said period there were
holidays on 21.1.2007, 26.1.2007, 27.1.2007, 28.1.2007,

30.1.2007, 4.2.2007, 10.2.2007 and on 11.2.2007. The
present proposal was accompanied by 12 other proposals.
In the meantime the then Detaining Authority was transferred
to another department and I assumed the charge of the office of

the Detaining Authority. Thereafter, the concerned Assistant

again prepared a detailed note on 11.4.2007 and forwarded
the same to the Under Secretary who gave his endorsement on
11.4.2007, and forwarded the said proposal to the Deputy
Secretary, who gave his endorsement on 20.4.2007. It is

submitted that during the said period there were holidays on
14.04.2007 and 15.04.2007 and assembly budget session was
going on. Thereafter, the file was forwarded to me and after
discussion with the Investigating Officer and carefully going
through the said proposal, I approved the same and formulated

the draft grounds of detention on 30.4.2007.”

6. Now, these assertions in the affidavit are not borne out

by record. Before coming to the record, it will be necessary to reiterate

that this officer took over the charge of the Detaining Authority some

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 13:41:16 :::
6
time after 10th April, 2007, and the file came to her, for the first time, on

30th April, 2007. The record does not show that this file was sent to the

Detaining Authority before 30th April, 2007, but the file had been

endorsed by the Deputy Secretary on 20th April, 2007. Even if it

reached the Detaining Authority on the same day, then it can be

presumed that the Detaining Authority had 10 days with her to pass an

order on 30th April, 2007. Whereas in the counter-affidavit, she stated

that on 30th April, 2007, she approved the proposal and formulated the

Grounds of Detention, the record shows that she made the following

observation on the file: “Discuss with I.O. Issue Detention Order.” That

means the Detaining Authority made her mind to detain the detenu on

30th April, 2007 itself.

7. We fail to understand how the Detaining Authority had taken

into consideration documents which were comprising of 7419 pages.

Even if it is accepted that she had 10 days before she passed an order

of directing issuance of Detention Order, although that is not proved by

the record itself, then, in our view, 10 days was not a sufficient time for

considering 7419 pages of documents. The process of framing the

Grounds of Detention starts after the order has been passed for issuing

the Detention Order! – which amounts to placing the cart before the

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 13:41:16 :::
7
horse. If there are grounds of detention available to a Detaining

Authority, then he can apply his mind, and examine whether a detenu

has to be detained or not; but once the Detaining Authority first decides

to detain a person, and then manufactures the grounds of detention,

that cannot be permitted. Even in the affidavit, it has been admitted that

the Grounds of Detention were framed after 30th April, 2007, and on 30th

April, 2007, the order with respect to issuance of Detention Order had

already been passed.

8. Time and again, we have said that this is an extra-ordinary

power given to the officers of the State to detain a person without any

charges or without any chance of trial; and this power should be

exercised with care. Since, on this ground alone, the Order of Detention

can be quashed, we do not go to the other grounds.

9. In the result, the Order of Detention dated 11th February, 2008

is quashed, and the detenu, Amit Bajaj, be released forthwith, if not

required in any other case. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed.

The Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 13:41:16 :::
8

BILAL NAZKI, J.

A.A. KUMBHAKONI, J.

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 13:41:16 :::