POOJA BATRA v. UNION
OF INDIA & ORS. [2009] INSC 640 (27 March 2009)
Judgement IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO......... OF 2009
(Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No. 7644 of 2008) Pooja Batra .... Appellant(s)
Versus Union of India & Ors. .... Respondent(s)
P. Sathasivam, J.
1) Leave granted.
2) This appeal is
directed against the judgment dated 05.09.2008 passed by the High Court of
Delhi in W.P. (Crl.) No. 782 of 2008 which was filed by Pooja Batra wife of
Deepak Kumar @ Deepak Batra detained under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange
and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as
"the COFEPOSA Act") praying for issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus
to release the detenu i.e. her husband from detention. The High Court, by the
said judgment, dismissed the writ petition with costs of Rs.50,000/- on her and
directed the department to initiate criminal proceedings against the detenu
under Sections 199, 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code in exercise of
its power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
3) The case of the
department is as follows:
(a) The Detaining
Authority has issued the detention order dated 05.12.2007 against Shri Deepak
Kumar @ Deepak Batra, the husband of the appellant herein on the basis of the
facts and documents put up before them and after satisfying with the facts on
records that the detenu has propensity and potentiality to indulge in smuggling
activities in future. The detenu is the mastermind for import of the goods
covered under Bill of Entry No. 589144 dated 25.04.2007. The goods covered
under abovementioned Bill of Entry were not only mis-declared in respect of
quantity but also there were certain goods which were concealed in the
container. The value of such mis-declared/smuggled goods as calculated comes to
Rs.87,07,220/- and attracting duty has worked out to Rs. 30 lacs approximately.
The detenu had indulged in repeated offences since 2006 as he was not the
actual owner of the Importer Exporter Code, (in short "IEC"). The
grounds are based on the eight Bills of Entry which were filed by the detenu
through his Customs House Agent, (in short "CHA") and also on the
basis of the statements tendered by Shri Naveen Kumar, an employee of CHA.
Eight Bills of Entry have been filed by the CHA in the name of firm provided by
the detenu. The detenu also provided the photocopy of the IEC. Shri Naveen
Kumar also identified the earlier signatures of the detenu on the authorization
letter dated 20.08.2007 given by the detenu. Shri Naveen Kumar confirmed the
relationship between the last consignment and the earlier eight consignments
imported by the detenu. The detenu had fraudulently used IEC No. and PAN No. of
M/s Om Prakash Deepak Kumar. The actual owner of the IEC was not aware of the
fact that his IEC is being misused by the detenu since 2006 and thorough
investigation conducted by the Customs Authorities has revealed that in the
past also eight such Bills of Entry were filed by the same CHA on the
directions of the detenu and the goods were cleared and handed over to the
detenu. The Detaining Authority has issued the detention order after satisfying
with the facts and circumstances of the case and material available on record.
(b) Ms. Pooja Batra,
wife of Deepak Batra has filed Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 782 of 2008 before the
High Court of Delhi for quashing the detention order bearing No. F.N.673/06/2007-CUS/VIII
dated 5th December, 2007 issued by the Joint Secretary (COFEPOSA), Ministry of
Finance, Department of Revenue under Section 3 of the COFEPOSA Act. Before the
High Court, various contentions such as non- application of mind on the part of
the Detaining Authority, consideration of irrelevant material, reliance on
extraneous material, non-supply of relevant and relied on materials, delay in
passing detention order and delay in disposal of representation etc were
raised. The High Court, by the impugned order dated 05.09.2008, dismissed her
writ petition. Questioning the same, she filed the present appeal by way of
special leave petition.
4) Heard Mr. R.S.
Sodhi, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Mrs. K. Amreshwari, learned
senior counsel for the respondents.
5) Mr. R.S. Sodhi,
learned senior counsel for the appellant after taking us through the grounds of
detention order, impugned order of the High Court dismissing the writ petition
of the appellant and all other connected materials contended that (a) The
detention order is liable to be quashed on the ground of non-application of
mind and non-supply of materials relied on and acted upon by the Detaining
Authority while passing the detention order.
(b) The Detaining
Authority relied on extraneous and irrelevant materials.
(c) The offences
alleged are not "smuggling" under the Customs Act, hence, there is no
question of violation of any Act including the Customs Act, therefore,
detention under COFEPOSA Act is not sustainable.
(d) Delay in passing
the detention order as well as in disposal of the representation of the detenu.
6) On the other hand,
Mrs. K. Amreshwari, learned senior counsel for the Union of India and their
officials, by taking us through the grounds of detention and the counter
affidavit filed by the Department, submitted that the detention order was
passed on the basis of the relevant materials and after subjective satisfaction
by the Detaining Authority. She further submitted that there is no illegality
or violation of any of the statutory provision including that of Article 22(5)
of the Constitution of India and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
7) For convenience,
first let us consider whether there is any delay in passing the detention order
and delay in disposal of the representation. (a) Regarding delay in passing
detention order, the alleged violation relates to Bill of Entry No. 589144
dated 25.04.2007, the detention order was passed on 05.12.2007. After the
seizure of the goods from the container covered under Bill of Entry No. 589144
dated 25.04.2007, nobody appeared before the authorities to get the goods
cleared till 23.07.2007. The detenu himself appeared before Customs Authorities
for the first time on 03.08.2007. His statement under Section 108 of the
Customs Act was recorded and he was arrested on 04.08.2007. It was explained
that in the light of the fact that earlier also similar eight consignments were
got cleared by the detenu, the investigation relied on the statement of witness
as if he is the actual owner of the proprietary concern, the statement of the
clearing agent and his nominee were recorded and it was only on 29.10.2007 the
sponsoring authority recommended to the COFEPOSA Department for consideration
of the matter to pass detention order against the detenu. All those actions,
various orders/proceedings were mentioned in seriatim both in the grounds of
detention, and in the counter affidavit filed by the very same authority. We
have carefully gone through the same and find no merit in the contention. On
the other hand, we are satisfied that there is proximity to the alleged offence
and the detention order. In our view, there was no undue delay so as to snap the
link between the incident and the alleged potentiality of the detenu in
indulging in smuggling activity. Hence, we reject the said contention.
(b) Coming to the
contention relating to delay in disposal of the representation, it is true that
whenever a representation is made either by the representative of the detenu or
by the detenu himself, it is incumbent on the part of the named authority to
consider, dispose of the same and pass appropriate orders and communicate it
without any unreasonable delay. However, it depends upon the facts and
circumstances of each case. In the instant case, the detenu has taken the plea
that he made a representation to the Secretary, Government of India as
suggested in the detention order on 13.06.2008 which was received by the Suptd.
of Jail on 16.06.2008, and on the very same day it was forwarded to COFEPOSA
Department. It is the contention of the counsel for the appellant that though
the representation was sent to the COFEPOSA Department on 16.06.2008 itself and
the fact that the Jail and COFEPOSA Department both located in Delhi yet it
took time for more than ten days to respond in obtaining the comments from the
sponsoring authority and get the same disposed of which is fatal and
accordingly the detention order deserves to be quashed. As against the said
detention, in the counter affidavit, it is clarified that the representation
was received by them on 20.06.2008. The specific assertion made in the counter
affidavit has not been refuted by the detenu in his rejoinder. On the same day,
i.e., 20.06.2008 itself, it was sent to the sponsoring authority, i.e. Customs
Authority, who sent their comments on 27.6.2008.
The comments on the
said representation were sent to the COFEPOSA department on 27.06.2008,
28/29.06.2008 were holidays being Saturday and Sunday and on the next day i.e. 30.06.2008,
the representation of the detenu was considered by the competent officer of the
COFEPOSA department and the same was rejected. The rejection order was
communicated to the detenu on 01.07.2008 and received by him on 02.07.2008. In
the light of the details furnished in the counter affidavit, we do not find any
substance in the contention and satisfy that there was any delay much more than
the bare minimum time required to obtain the comments of the sponsoring
authority accordingly, we reject the said contention also.
8) Let us consider
the main contention, namely, non- application of mind on the part of the
Detaining Authority and consideration of extraneous and irrelevant materials.
This issue covers all the rest of the contentions raised by the learned senior
counsel for the appellant. Mr. R.S. Sodhi, learned senior counsel, submitted
that though the detention order was passed on 05.12.2007 after seizure of the
goods contained in Bill of Entry No. 589144 dated 25.04.2007, the Detaining
Authority relying on the eight Bills of Entry/Consignments which related to
earlier years and on the assumption that the detenu misused CHA and IEC passed
the detention order. According to him, those eight consignments were cleared by
the Customs authorities after proper verification, hence the same cannot be a
subject matter for detaining the detenu under COFEPOSA Act. No doubt, Mrs. K.
Amreshwari, learned senior counsel for the Department contended that except the
goods seized from the container covered under Bill of Entry No. 589144 dated
25.04.2007, the authorities have not based reliance on any other instance.
She also contended
that even solitary instance is sufficient to clamp the detention order if the
Detaining Authority is satisfied with the materials placed before it. There is
no dispute that even for a solitary instance if sufficient materials are
available and if the Detaining Authority is subjectively satisfied that the
detenu is indulging in smuggling activities which is detrimental to the
interest of the Department, the detention order can be clamped. However,
perusal of the grounds of detention order dated 05.12.2007 as well as the
counter affidavit sworn to by the Joint Secretary to the Govt.
of India, Ministry of
Finance, Department of Revenue dated 12.12.2008 amply demonstrate that the
Detaining Authority has based its conclusion not only with reference to Bill of
Entry No. 589144 dated 25.04.2007 but also relating to eight Bills of
Entry/Consignments cleared earlier. The detention order, Annexure P-2, is
available at page 97 of the paper book.
In the order apart
from narration of various materials as to the seizure of goods dated 25.04.2007
the Detaining Authority has adverted to and relied upon the clearance of eight
consignments. In paragraph 18 of the detention order, there is a specific reference
to those facts which reads as under:
"M/s P.P. Datta,
Wg. Cdr. (Retd.), the CHA vide their letter dated 9.9.2007 submitted
photocopies of bills of entry No. 530534 dated 28.8.2006 No. 538152 dated
25.9.2006 No. 543052 dated 16.10.2006, No. 548191 dated 7.11.2006, No. 554135
dated 1.12.2006, No. 558417 dated 20.12.2006, No. 559159 dated 11 23.12.2006
and No. 562725 dated 9.1.2007 (total 8 (eight) bills of entry). It was observed
that in all the said bills of entry the importers were M/s Om Prakash Deepak
Kumar and the items imported were Hinges, Scrubber, Telescopic Channels from
M/s Mount Overseas (HK) Ltd. and M/s PIT Industries (Hong Kong)."
The same particulars
were reiterated in paragraph 22. In paragraph 23, it is stated that enquiries
are being conducted at overseas to find out the description of goods declared
at port of export, details of payment and the value declared at port of export
in respect to the goods already stands cleared under the aforesaid eight Bills
of Entry. In paragraph 26, Detaining Authority has asserted that the detention
order was passed "after taking into consideration the foregoing facts and
materials on record" and concluded that "satisfied that you ought to
be detained under the COFEPOSA Act, 1974 with a view to preventing you from
smuggling goods in future." In paragraph 29, the Detaining Authority once
again reiterated that the clearance of goods on the basis of eight Bills of
Entry, and finally in paragraph 32, the Detaining Authority has concluded thus:
12 "While
passing the detention order under the provisions of Conservation of Foreign
Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, I have referred to
and relied upon the documents mentioned in the enclosed list." (Emphasis
supplied) "The enclosed list" mentioned in paragraph 32 is available
as Annexure P-4 at page 143 of the paper book. S.No. 33 of Annexure P-4
specifically refers "Request for overseas inquiry in respect of eight
consignments claimed to be cleared by M/s Om Prakash Deepak Kumar". As rightly
contended, paragraph 32, makes it clear that the Detaining Authority had not
only referred to eight Bills of Entry but also relied upon those documents in
respect of eight consignments. It is not in dispute that those eight Bills of
Entry/consignments were cleared by M/s Om Prakash Deepak Kumar after
verification and on the orders of the Department. Though, learned senior
counsel for the Department submitted that out of eight consignments only five
of the 10% of the checking of goods alone were verified by the Department, the
fact remains that firstly nothing prevented the concerned officer from
verifying the entire consignment as it was done in the case of Bill of Entry
No. 589144 dated 25.04.2007 and secondly there was a valid order for clearance
by the officer concerned. No doubt, the department is free to reopen the issue
but the fact remains that on the date of passing the detention order it was
only at the stage of notice and no final decision/conclusion was taken for
violation of the provisions of the Customs Act. In such circumstances, reliance
on those materials which is evident from paragraph 32 read with S.No. 33 of
Annexure P-4 clearly demonstrate that Detaining Authority has considered
irrelevant materials while formulating the grounds of detention. As pointed out
above though the counsel for the respondents submitted that the Detaining
Authority has considered only in respect of Bill of Entry No. 589144 dated
25.04.2007 for passing detention order, it is clear that apart from the reference
in the detention order itself about the eight consignments, paragraph 5(1) of
the counter affidavit clearly shows that the Detaining Authority had relied on
eight Bills of Entry while arriving subjective satisfaction. Though, learned
senior counsel for the respondents, in the course of arguments, submitted that
whatever said in the counter affidavit may be eschewed, in view of the fact
that the very same person who signed the detention order has also signed the
counter affidavit before this Court, the contents therein cannot be lightly
ignored as claimed. On the other hand, the details mentioned in the detention
order as well as in the counter affidavit clearly demonstrate that in addition
to the Bill of Entry dated 25.04.2007 the Detaining Authority heavily relied on
eight Bill of Entries/consignments and satisfying that he will continue to
indulge in smuggling activities which will be detrimental to the department
passed the impugned detention order.
9) We have already
pointed out that the authorities are free to reopen the case in respect of
import of eight consignments/Bill of Entries which is said to have been taken
place prior to the Bill of Entry dated 25.04.2007. However, even according to
the department, those consignments were cleared under proper orders by the
authority concerned. It is also not in dispute that on the date of the passing
of the detention order the authorities have issued notice calling for certain
details in respect of import of those eight consignments. In other words, the said
issue has not concluded and no adverse finding against him is passed on the
date of the passing of the detention order. In such circumstances, we are of
the view that `inconclusive state of investigation' cannot legitimately help
the authorities to pass an order of detention against the detenu on the
perfunctory and inchoate material relied upon. It is useful to refer a decision
of this Court in Chowdarapu Raghunandan vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others,
2002 (3) SCC 754. After finding that on the date of passing of the detention
order investigation in respect of certain other alleged violations is still
pending to ascertain the involvement and role of persons concerned and noting
that apart from the absence of any positive or concrete materials to connect
the baggage in question with the petitioner therein, the nature of stand
disclosed in counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent does not
really help the authority to prove that the said material and such vitally
relevant aspect was either adverted to or really considered before passing the
order of detention and taking note of the fact that the detention order suffers
the vice of the total non-application of mind to a relevant and vital material touching
question of the culpability as well as the necessity to order the detention of
the petitioner, quashed the same and allowed the writ petition. It is settled
law that Courts exercising powers of judicial review do not consider the
challenge to an order of detention as if on an appeal, re- appreciating the
materials, yet since an order of detention in prison involves the fundamental
rights of citizens, freedom of movement and pursuit of normal life and liberty,
no absolute immunity can be claimed by the authorities as to the decision arrived
and it is open to the Courts to see whether there has been due and proper
application of mind and that all the relevant and vital materials for the
purpose have been noticed, adverted to and considered. If we consider the case
on hand on the above principles, though, the Detaining Authority has relied on
the import of eight consignments, the fact remains that the goods were cleared
after passing appropriate orders by the authorities and any event on the date
of passing of detention order it was at the stage of notice calling for
reopening the issue hence the same cannot be a valid material for passing an
order of detention against the detenu. In fact, while determining the
subjective satisfaction the Detaining Authority had said that enquiries are
pending on all those documents placed on record and relied upon by them. Use of
incomplete material which is either pending or inconclusive cannot be a basis
for detention order. In the recent judgment Kothari Filaments & Anr. vs.
Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata and Ors. JT 2009 (1) SC 516, this Court
has held that if any enquiry is inconclusive pending consideration the same
cannot be the basis for passing an order against the person concerned.
Therefore, the eight consignments/Bill of Entries relied upon by the Detaining
Authority become irrelevant and conclusion on extraneous material cannot be
sustained.
10) Learned senior
counsel for the appellant has also pointed out that all the materials which
were relied on and actually considered in the grounds of detention have not
been supplied to detenu. We have already pointed out that both in the grounds
of detention as well as counter affidavit filed in support of the said order
the Detaining Authority has reiterated all those documents including the import
of eight consignments were relied on in more than one place while passing the
order of detention. In fact, the Detaining Authority has adverted to the
statement of Deepak Kumar and mentioned that he had seen his signature in his
statement recorded on 03.08.2007 as well as on letter dated 02.08.2007 and
agreed that signature of Deepak Kumar on the declaration and authorization
letter do not tally with his signature on the statement dated 03.08.2007 and
letter dated 02.08.2007 and concluded that both the formats do not tally.
11) It is also
relevant to refer the definition of "smuggling" in Section 2(39) of
the Customs Act, 1962 which reads as under:
""smuggling",
in relation to any goods, means any act or omission which will render such
goods liable to confiscation under section 111 or section 113;"
Section 111 of the Customs
Act, 1962 deals with confiscation of improperly imported goods which reads as
thus:- "111. Confiscation of improperly imported goods, etc.-- The
following goods brought from a place outside India shall be liable to
confiscation:-- (a) any goods imported by sea or air which are unloaded or attempted
to be unloaded at any place other than a customs port or customs airport
appointed under clause (a) of section 7 for the unloading of such goods;
(b) any goods
imported by land or inland water through any route other than a route specified
in a notification issued under clause (c) of section 7 for the import of such
goods;
(c) any dutiable or
prohibited goods brought into any bay, gulf, creek or tidal river for the
purpose of being landed at a place other than a customs port;
(d) any goods which
are imported or attempted to be imported or are brought within the Indian
customs waters for the purpose of being imported, contrary to any prohibition
imposed by or under this Act or any other law for the time being in force;
(e) any dutiable or
prohibited goods found concealed in any manner in any conveyance;
(f) any dutiable or
prohibited goods required to be mentioned under the regulations in an import
manifest or import report which are not so mentioned;
(g) any dutiable or
prohibited goods which are unloaded form a conveyance in contravention of the
provisions of section 32, other than goods inadvertently unloaded but included
in the record kept under sub-section (2) of section 45;
(h) any dutiable or
prohibited goods unloaded or attempted to be unloaded in contravention of the
provisions of section 33 or section 34;
(i) any dutiable or
prohibited goods found concealed in any manner in any package either before or
after the unloading thereof;
(j) any dutiable or
prohibited goods removed or attempted to be removed from a customs area or a
warehouse without the permission of the proper officer or contrary to the terms
of such permission;
(k) any dutiable or
prohibited goods imported by land in respect of which the order permitting
clearance of the goods required to be produced under section 109 is not
produced or which do not correspond in any material particular with the
specification contained therein;
20 (l) any dutiable
or prohibited goods which are not included or are in excess of those included
in the entry made under this Act, or in the case of baggage in the declaration
made under section 77;
(m) any goods which
do not correspond in respect of value or in any other particular with the entry
made under this Act or in the case of baggage with the declaration made under
section 77 in respect thereof or in the case of goods under transshipment, with
the declaration for transshipment referred to in the proviso to sub-section (1)
of section 54;
(n) any dutiable or
prohibited goods transited with or without transshipment or attempted to be so
transited in contravention of the provisions of Chapter VIII;
(o) any goods
exempted, subject to any condition, from duty or any prohibition in respect of
the import thereof under this Act or any other law for the time being in force,
in respect of which the condition is not observed unless the non-observance of
the condition was sanctioned by the proper officer;
(p) any notified
goods in relation to which any provisions of Chapter IVA or of any rule made under
this Act for carrying out the purposes of that Chapter have been
contravened."
This Section refers
to goods brought from a place outside India shall be liable to confiscation.
Unless there is proper enquiry and arrive at a conclusion in terms of Section
111 or Section 113 it cannot be concluded that smuggling had taken place. There
is nothing in the order of detention which would indicate that any of the said
earlier imports were effected in contravention of any of the provisions of the
Customs act, 1962, or that they could have been regarded as having been
smuggled into the country within the meaning of Section 2(39) of the said Act.
Except notice for reopening the order clearing eight consignments prior to
Bills of Entry dated 25.04.2007, there is no adjudication and final order by
the authority concerned. In other words, the reference to alleged violation of
the Customs Act in respect of import of eight consignments which was only at
the pre-mature stage and considering extraneous materials, which are
inconclusive cannot be a valid ground for clamping detention under COFEPOSA
Act.
Inasmuch as, the
Detaining Authority has extensively relied upon the allegations that the detenu
was involved in the import of eight consignments through M/s P.P. Dutta,
reliance on those irrelevant material vitiates the detention order. This is
more so as the said alleged earlier imports, apparently constitute the main
basis for the opinion formed by the Detaining Authority that the detenu had the
propensity and potentiality to indulge in smuggling activities in future.
12) As already
discussed, even based on one incident the Detaining Authority is free to take
appropriate action including detaining him under COFEPOSA Act. The Detaining
Authority has referred to the violation in respect of importable goods covered
under Bill of Entry No. 589144 dated 25.04.2007. In an appropriate case, an
inference could legitimately be drawn even from a single incident of smuggling
that the person may indulge in smuggling activities, however, for that purpose
antecedents and nature of the activities already carried out by a person are
required to be taken into consideration for reaching justifiable satisfaction
that the person was engaged in smuggling and that with a view to prevent, it
was necessary to detain him. If there is no adequate material for arriving at
such a conclusion based on solitary incident the Court is required and is bound
to protect him in view of the personal liberty which is guaranteed under the
Constitution of India. Further subjective satisfaction of the authority under
the law is not absolute and should not be unreasonable. In the matter of
preventive detention, what is required to be seen is that it could reasonably
be said to indicate any organized act or manifestation of organized activity or
give room for an inference that the detenu would continue to indulge in similar
prejudicial activity warranting or necessitating the detention of the person to
ensure that he does not repeat this activity in future. In other words, while a
single act of smuggling can also constitute the basis for issuing an order of
detention under the COFEPOSA Act, highest standards of proof are required to
exist. In the absence of any specific and authenticated material to indicate
that he had the propensity and potentiality to continue to indulge in such
activities in future, the mere fact that on one occasion person smuggled goods
into the country would not constitute a legitimate basis for detaining him
under the COFEPOSA Act. This can be gathered from the past or future activities
of the said person. In the case on hand, we have already pointed out that there
were no such past activities as could lead to a reasonable conclusion that he
possesses the propensity or the potentiality to indulge in smuggling activities
in future, to prevent which it is necessary to detain him. At present there is
nothing in the order of detention which would indicate that any of the said
earlier imports was effective in contravention of any of the provisions of the Customs
Act, 1962 or that they could have been regarded as having been smuggled into
the country within the meaning of Section 2(39) of the said Act. In such a
case, as held by this Court in Chowdarapu Raghunandan (supra), the invocation
of the COFEPOSA Act against such a person would not be justified.
13) Apart from these
aspects, it is unfortunate that the High Court while considering the Habeas
Corpus writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by
the wife of the detenu challenging the order of detention on various grounds,
on going through the materials of the department as if as an Appellate Court
relying on Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure directed the Commissioner of
Customs, ICD, Tughlakabad, to lodge a report with the police station,
Tughlakabad within a period of 15 days along with the complete set of relevant
documents to enable them to register a case under Sections 199, 420, 468 and
471 of the Indian Penal Code against the detenu. The said direction is not
warranted considering the fact that issue before the High Court was about the
validity of the detention order and the curtailment of the personal liberty of
the detenu and nothing more. We are of the view that the High court is not
justified in issuing such direction and awarding exemplary cost of Rs. 50,000/-
payable to the sponsoring authority.
14) In the light of
the above discussion and for the reasons stated above the impugned order of the
High Court dated 05.09.2008 in W.P. (Crl.) 782/2008 is set aside, consequently
the detention order bearing F.N. No. 673/06/07-CUS/VIII dated 05.12.2007 issued
by Joint Secretary (COFEPOSA), Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue is
quashed. The detenu-husband of the appellant viz., Deepak Kumar @ Deepak Batra
is ordered to set at liberty forthwith if he is not required in any other case.
Appeal is allowed.
..........................................J.
(DALVEER BHANDARI)
..........................................J.
(P. SATHASIVAM)
New
Delhi;
March
27, 2009.
Back
