POOJA BATRA versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 5 S.C.R. 67 · Decided: 27-03-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DALVEER BHANDARI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

(2009] 5 S.C.R. 67 
POOJA BATRA 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 563 of 2009) 
MARCH 27, 2009 
B 
[DALVEER BHANDARI AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] 
Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of 
Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 - s. 3 - Detention order -
Based on seizure of goods from container covered under Bill c 
of Entry where detenu mis-declared/smuggled goods as also 
past eight consignments cleared earlier - A/legation that 
detenu likely to indulge in smuggling activities - Challenge 
to - Held: Detention order not sustainable - There was non 
'~ 
application of mind by Detaining Authority - It relied on 
D 
extraneous and irrelevant materials - 'Inconclusive state of 
investigation' cannot be basis for passing detention order 
against the detenu - Offence alleged were not 'smuggling' -
There was no violation of Customs Act - Said eight 
consignments were cle.ared by Custom Authorities after E 
proper verification - There were no past activities to constitute 
legitimate basis for detaining him - Thus, detention order is 
quashed- Customs Act, 1962- ss. 111 and 2(39). 
There were allegations against the appellant's 
F 
husband that he was likely to indulge in smuggling 
activities in future. The detention order was issued 
against him uls.3 of the Conservation of Foreign 
Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 
1974. Appellant filed writ petition seeking release of 
detenu from detention and quashing of detention order. 
G 
.. 
High Court dismissed the writ petition. Hence the present 
appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
67 
H 
68 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 5 S.C.R. 
A 
HELD: 1.1 .. As regard the delay in passing detention 
order, it is satisfied that there is proximity to the alleged 
offence and the detention order. There was no undue 
delay so as to snap the link between the incident and the 
alleged potentiality of the detenu in indulging in 
B smuggling activity. [Para 7] [76-D-E] 
1.2. When1ever 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, dis1pose of the same and pass appropriate 
C orders and communicate it without any unreasonable 
delay. However, it depends upon the facts and 
circumstances of each case. In the instant case, in the 
·light of the dE~tails furnished in the counter affidavit, it 
.cannot be said that there was delay in disposal of the 
D representation and it is satisfied that there was no delay 
much more than the bare minimum time required to obtain 
th"' comments of the sponsoring authority. [Para 7] [76-
F-H; 77-A] 
E 
1.3. Even for a solitary instance if sufficient materials 
are available and if the Detaining Authority is subjectively 
. · s~tisfied ~~a1t t.h~ detenu is indulging in smuggling 
activities which is detrimental to the interest of the 
Department, the detention order can be clamped. 
F:. ':However, perusal of the ground~rofdetention order dated 
; '05.12<2007 as weWas• the counter: affidavit sworn to by the 
..,,Joint Secretary to the Govt. of India .amply demonstrate 
· ,that the Detaining Authority based its conclusion not only 
. ':with. reference1 .fo,BiU of Entry dated 25.04 .. 2007 but also 
.· 
G""'rela~ing to eightcBills of Entl"y/0onsign_mants cle?red 
· · . 1·earher. In tho .orf;ler. apart from..narratton. of •Vanous 
'·materials as to .the seizure.of goods the .Detaining 
Authority adv1erted to and relied upon the clearance of 
eight consignments. [Para ~) (78-B-F] 
., 
' 
I•-
. 
H 
1.4. The authorities are free to reopen the case in 
POOJA BATRA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
69 
respect of import of eight consignments/Bill of Entries A 
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. On the date of 
; 
the passing of the detention order the authorities issued B 
notice calling for certain details in respect of import of 
those eight consignments. The said issue was not 
concluded and no adverse finding against him was 
passed on the date of the passing of the detention order. 
In such circumstances, 'inconclusive state of c 
investigation' cannot legitimately help the authorities to 
pass an order of detention against the detenu on the 
perfunctory and inchoate material relied upon. [Para 9) 
[80-H; 81-A-C] 
.1 
1.5. After finding that on the date 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.