9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 1114X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ystematically misused his AEO status, breached the trust placed on him by the Government and smuggled mobile phones in large numbers into India. 4. Mr Sujay Kantawala, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant, submitted that the arresting officer had no legal authority and jurisdiction to arrest the Applicant and that his arrest was in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 5. It is submitted that a team of four DRI Officers came to the residence of Applicant at about 6.45 a.m. on 2 December 2022 with the intent to arrest him without any order or permission from the Settlement Commission. It is submitted that on verification of the Document Identification Number (DIN) mentioned on the summons dated 2 December 2022, it is revealed that the same was issued only at 08:09:43 hrs. in DRI, Mumbai Zonal office. It is submitted that, no summons was in existence at about 7.00 hrs. when the Officers came to the residence of the Applicant. He further submitted that the Applicant was apprehended and he remained detained in the custody of the DRI Officers from 6.45 a.m. on 2 December 2022 to his production before the learned Magistrate at about 11.00 a.m. on 3 Decem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of the provisions of the Act insofar as they relate to any matter other than those before the Settlement Commission. 10. The learned Counsel relied on 1) Muskan Exim Inc. Vs. Commissioner of Customs 2019 (366) E.L.T. 241 Delhi, 2) Amit Sirohi Vs. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, 2016 (336) ELT 201 Delhi, 3) State of Punjab Vs. Ajaib Singh & Anr. (1952)2 SCC 421 ; 4) Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. (2014) 8 SCC 273; 5) Directorate of Enforcement Vs. Deepak Mahajan & Anr. (1994)3 SCC 440 Sachin Shantaram Sonawane Vs. State of Maharashtra; 2018 (2) Bombay.C.R.(Cri) 262; Mr Ugochukwu Solomon Ubabuko Vs. Union of India (2022) ALL MR (Cri) 1733; Suaibo Ibow Cassama Vs. Union of India & Anr. 1993 SCC OnLine Bom 254; D.K. Basu Vs. State of W.B. (1997) 1 SCC 416; Sanjay Mukeshbhai Patel Vs. State of Gujrat, R/SCR.A/3089/2022, in support of his contentions. 11. Mr Advait Sethna, learned Counsel for the first Respondent, submitted that the Applicant had voluntarily appeared on being summoned before DRI by coming in a car driven by his son and that his voluntary statement was recorded from 9.30 a.m. till 2.14 p.m. He submitted that a team of four DRI Officers went to the Appli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... htra, Cri. Appeal No.1845 of 2011 dated 23.09.2011 SC. (iv) Sanjay Mukeshbhai Patel Vs. State of Gujrat, R/Special Cri. Application No.3089 of 2022 dated 13.7.2022 (Guj); (v) Sundeep Kumar Bafna Vs. State of Maharashtra, Cri.Appeal No.689 of 2014 decided on 27.3.2014 (SC). (vi) Commissioner of Customs (Import) Vs. Dinesh Bhabootmal Salecha, Custom Appeal (L) No.20820 of 2022 dated 8.9.2022 (Bom). (vii) Dinesh Bhabootmal Salecha & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., WP (L) No.4965 of 2022 dated 24.2.2022. , (viii) Kowstova Buragohain Vs. The State of Assam & Ors., W.P. (Cri)/ 29 of 2021 dated 10.2.2022 (ix) Ashirwad Enterprises and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Anr., Cri. Misc. No.4307 of 1992 dated 26.9.1997 (Patna); (x) Amit Bhandari Vs. State of & Ors. Cri.W.P. No.482/2012 dated 2.8.2012(Delhi), (xi) Vimal Yashwantgiri Goswami Vs. State of Gujrat, R/Special Civil Applicaiton Nos.13679 of 2019 dated 20.10.2020 (Guj) in support of his contentions; (xii) Romesh Chandra Mehta Vs. State of West Bengal, MANU/SC/0282/1968 decided on 18.10.1968 and Criminal Appeal No.1183 of 2002 dated 25.11.2019 in the case of Tejraj Roopchand Doshi Vs. A.D.Petkar & Ors. 13. This Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stody of the co-accused, already contained detailed allegations qua the Applicant, including past 130 consignments. Learned Counsel for the first respondent could not justify the stated purpose of "to serve summons" by the visit of four DRI Officers in the early hours at 7.00 p.m. when admittedly, the DIN Number printed on the summons was not in existence. It is not even the claim of first respondent as can be seen from the affidavits filed by the authority that the summons was printed at the residence of the Applicant. It is not clear as to why the remand application for the Applicant and that of his co-accused, despite both having allegations regarding past imports had two different file numbers. The Applicant's daughter has placed on record by e-mail dated 2 December 2022 that four Officers of DRI came to their residence at about 6.45 a.m., and her father was detained and forcibly taken to the DRI office despite his resistance and insistence on permission from Settlement Commission. A representation in this regard was also forwarded to CBIC on 2 December 2022. The learned Counsel for the first respondent also could not give any justifiable response to the query as to why the App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
