TMI Blog2010 (1) TMI 34X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng an explanation. - The undisputed fact is that for over four years now the investigation is still incomplete. Till date there is no show cause notice issued, no criminal case filed and no arrest made. In the circumstances, this Court finds, even with reference to Sections 110 (3) and 121 of the Act, no legal justification for the continued freezing of the Petitioner’s accounts. – order of de-freeze the banks accounts given - 7992 of 2008 - - - Dated:- 25-1-2010 - Through: Mr. Deepak Gandhi with Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocates. Through: Mr. Ravinder Agarwal, Advocate. CORAM:- HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR 1. Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2. To be referred to reporter or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er which led to the conclusion that the Petitioner was exporting junk material by declaring it as "mounted PCBs for telecommunication, plastic grating and sewing needles." 3. In relation the petitioner's bank accounts which were frozen, it is stated in para 9(d) of the counter affidavit as under: "The money lying in the EEFC Account No. 3004042934 are sale proceeds of goods exported by the present Petitioner. The investigation conducted so far including interception of live export consignments revealed that the present Petitioner was indulging export of junk goods declaring the same as high value goods. Therefore, the bank accounts of the Petitioner and its proprietor are subject to seizure under Section 110(3) of the Customs Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondents relies upon Section 121 of the Act to justify the continued freezing of the petitioner's bank accounts. 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner points out that the sole proprietor of the Petitioner concern, Shri Vipul Aggarwal, was placed under preventive detention by an order dated 3rd January 2006 under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Act (COFEPOSA). The said detention came to be quashed by the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 1st December 2006 by allowing Writ Petition (C) No. 1485 of 2006 filed by his mother Smt. Suman Aggarwal. The above orders have been challenged by the Respondents by filing SLPs which are stated to be pending in the Supreme Court. 7. The fact of the mat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed there is nothing to be done thereafter by the officer for any number of years. The said power is coupled with a responsibility to act fairly and reasonably for only then can the abuse of such power be checked. The interpretation of Section 110 (3) of the Act has to be consistent with this understanding of statutory powers of public authorities, which have to conform to the requirement of non-arbitrariness implicit in Article 14 of the Constitution. If the power of seizure under Section 110 (3) were to be seen as permitting a "proper officer" to neither take the next logical step of proceeding with and completing his enquiries/investigation nor return the seized articles/goods to the person from whom they have been seized, then it would r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ods are smuggled goods, the sale-proceeds thereof shall be liable to confiscation." The above provision presupposes at least a prima facie determination prior to the confiscation that the goods which have been sold are indeed "smuggled goods" and that the bank accounts frozen contain the sale proceeds of such smuggled goods. Any other interpretation would encourage a misuse of the power to indefinitely keep the accounts of a person frozen on the mere suspicion that they contain the sale proceeds of goods which are again only suspected of being smuggled goods. To justify the continued freezing of a bank account on this basis, the authorities must show that there is some material on record, which has been put to the person in whose name th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s completed within a reasonable period, it would be unfair to make the Petitioner, whose bank accounts remain frozen for over four years to wait indefinitely. There must be some convincing explanation and legal justification for the Respondents continuing to keep the Petitioner's bank account frozen particularly since they have returned all other seized goods and things after the detention order was quashed. There is none offered by the Respondents. 12. It was submitted that the petitioner did not turn up for inquiry despite being issued summons several times. He was convicted by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (MM) on 11.12.2006 for the offences under Sections 172,174 and 175 IPC. In the rejoinder, while denying that the sole pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
