Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2014 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (3) TMI 1098 - HC - CustomsWrit of habeas corpus - Detention order - Jurisdiction of Court to entertain the appeal - proceedings under COFEPOSA - non-placement before the Detaining Authority of vital documents having a bearing on the subjective satisfaction, non-consideration and non-advertence thereto in the grounds of detention by the Detaining Authority - Held that: - in the instant petition, challenge to the impugned detention orders was not considered at pre-execution stage and the petitioners were compelled to surrender to the detention orders. Since the detention orders stand executed as of now, there cannot, therefore, exist any bar in considering the merits of the grounds of challenge urged by the petitioners. The final consideration of the grounds urged is only after execution of the detention orders. Respondents could not show any binding precedent where the Courts have refused to consider the challenge of a detenu in a writ petition despite the execution of the detention order merely because challenge was unsuccessful at pre- execution stage. Even otherwise, the main ground of non-placement, non- consideration and non-advertence to vital documents was not decided earlier on merits in the absence of requisite grounds and documents relied upon. This Court cannot permit the Authorities to take shelter under such technical pleas in the matter of a writ petition in a preventive detention matter. Territorial jurisdiction - Held that: - the petitioners have also a residence in Karnal in the State of Haryana. Their father resides in Karnal. Their birth place, as evident from their passports, is also Karnal. It is not denied that the attempt to serve the detention order was made at Karnal. The Detaining Authority deputed its representative for the purpose of service of detention order and grounds upon the petitioners in the jurisdiction of this Court and thereupon, the detention orders and grounds were served upon them in the jurisdiction of this Court, albeit after the orders of this Court. The petitioners were thus detained in the jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, I hold that merely because the respondents have doubts on the bona-fides of the petitioners in invoking jurisdiction of this Cout, it cannot be said that no part of cause of action has arisen in the jurisdiction of this Court, to consider the challenge to the detention orders, muchless after its execution in the jurisdiction of this Court by compelling the petitioners to surrender to the respective detention orders. There cannot be any criminal prosecution under FEMA in the absence of any statutory provision for the same. Although consideration of the possibility of adjudication proceedings is reflected in the grounds of detention, however, consideration of the possibility of criminal prosecution of the petitioners under other ordinary laws of land is not even reflected in the grounds of detention. This infirmity alone is sufficient to vitiate the detention orders. The prayer for quashing of the impugned orders of detention Nos. bearing F. No. 673/09/2010-CUS.VIII dated 2nd June, 2010 and F. No. 673/10/2010-CUS.VIII dated 2nd June, 2010, which were executed upon the petitioners, is allowed and the impugned detention orders against the petitioners are quashed and set aside - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.
|