9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 1363X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r has prayed for the following reliefs in this petition: - "a) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to declare: i. That the seizure of the gold dust by Respondent No.7 vide Seizure Memo No. 534/2024 dated 28.04.2024 (Exhibit 'B' hereto) is illegal and without jurisdiction; ii. That the subsequent actions of the Respondents culminating into the arrest of the Petitioner vide Arrest Memo dated 28.04.2024 are illegal and violate the fundamental rights of the Petitioner; iii. That Respondent Officers have no jurisdiction to accost and apprehend Transit passengers, illegally detain them and/or illegally seize their goods which were never meant for importation into India. iv. That since there was no misdeclaration of any manner wha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o. 8, 9, 10 and 11 to preserve all CCTV footage at Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport, Mumbai, covering the Petitioner's presence on the Airport premises on 27.04.2024 and 28.04.2024." 3. Dr Kantawala submitted that the response of respondents about the CCTV footage at the Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport, Mumbai, being erased within 30 days is not acceptable and, in any event, such erasion is contrary to the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Paramvir Singh Saini Vs. Baljit Singh and Others (2021) 1 Supreme Court Cases 184. 4. Dr Kantawala also referred to the decision of the learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court in Mohammed Haroon and Another Vs. Additional Director Ge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 24, we recorded Mr Kantharia's statement, made on instructions, that the seized goods will not be disposed of until adjudication proceedings are concluded. This statement was accepted as an undertaking to this Court. 8. Since, in this matter, gold dust is seized from the petitioner. We think that the interest of justice would be met if the direction for not disposing of seized items until adjudication proceedings are concluded must operate. We direct accordingly. 9. We had also indicated that if the conclusion in the adjudication proceedings is adverse to the interest of the petitioner, such order should not be acted upon for 4 weeks from the date of service of such order upon the petitioner even this direction is reiterated. Thus, by lea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
