RAJINDER ARORA versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] 3 S.C.R. 9 · Decided: 10-03-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

RAJINDER ARORA 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
MARCH I 0, 2006 
[S.B. SINHA AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, JJ.] 
B 
Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling 
Activities Act, 1974-Detention order-Interference with. at pre-execution 
stage-Scope of-Utilization of unlawful import-Raid conducted, detention C 
order passed after 10 months and no explanation for the delay-Status report 
not taken into consideration by Customs Authorities-No prosecution lodged 
by Statutory Authorities against the person concerned, also non-issuance of 
show cause notice-Thus, detention order was passed for a wrong purpose 
and was on vague, extraneous and irrelevant grounds, as such not sustainable 
and set aside-Foreign Trade Development and Regulation Act, 1994. 
D 
It is alleged that the appellant was engaged in the utilization of 
unlawful import. On 26.05.2004, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) 
conducted raid in appellant's residence and he was taken in custody. He 
was allegedly tortured and 'his statements were recorded under coercion. 
Appellant was arrested on 28.05.2004 and was remanded to judicial E 
custody where he retracted his confession. Appellant was under treatment 
for 45 days out of the total period of 60 days of judicial remand. 
Thereafter, appellant was enlarged on biiil since the DRI Department 
failed to file complaint against the appellant within the statutory period. 
In the meanwhile, his family members were forced to deposit a sum of F 
Rs. 60 lakhs as customs duty. Appellant then filed a criminal complaint 
against DRI alleging torture. However, on 31.3.2005, detention order was 
issued against the appellant under COFEPOSA. High Court dismissed the 
writ petition praying for quashing of the order of detention. Hence, the 
present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I. The authorities in terms of sections 9(4), 10 and 11 of 
the Foreign Trade Development and Regulation Act, 1994 exercise a wide 
jurisdictiM. Although the raid was made on 26.05.2004, till date no matter 
G 
9 
H 
10 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2006) 3 S.C.R. 
A has been brought on record to lodge prosecution against the appellant by 
DGFT. Also the statutory authorities have not yet issued any show cause 
notice on the appellant on the ground that the export commitments were 
not fulfilled. Further, the respondent gave no explanation nor any reason 
whatsoever as to why the order of detention had been issued after such a 
B long time. The authorities did not examine the said question before issuing 
the order of detention. Furthermore, the status report called for from the 
Customs Department has not been taken into consideration by the 
competent authorities. Also the Authorities had granted redemption 
certificates. (13-F-G; 17-A, H; 18-AI 
C 
1.2. Having regard to the aforementioned findings, the order of 
detention was passed for a wrong purpose, and was passed on vague, 
extraneous and irrelevant grounds, thus, it is set aside. [ 14-CI 
Additional Secretary to the Government of India and Ors. v. Smt. Atka 
Subhash Gadia and Anr., (19921 Supp 1 SCC 496; T.D. Abdul Rahman v. 
D State of Kera/a and Ors .. AIR (1990) SC 225 and KS. Nagamuthu v. State 
of Tamil Nadu and Ors .. (2005) 9 SCALE 534, relied on. 
Naresh Kumar Goyal v. Union of India and Ors .. [20051 8 SCC 276, 
referred to. 
E 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 311 
of 2006. 
From the final Order dated 6.9.2005 of the Punjab and Haryana High 
Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 303/2005. 
F 
Mukul Rohtagi, Uday U. Lalit, Ms. Aprajat Singh, A. Sannad, Vikram 
G 
Choudhary and Mohanprasad Meharia for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S.B. SINHA, J. Leave granted. 
The Appellant is an industrialist. He manufactures acrylic yam, blankets 
and shawls. The said goods are exportable items. The units of the Appellant 
are recognized export houses. They were awarded the highest export 
performance Awards by Wool and Woolen Export Promotion Council for 
manufacture of the aforementioned goods. The Appellant imported some raw 
H materials on the premise that the imported items would be utilized for 
l-
RAJINDER ARORA v. U.0.1. [SINHA, J.] 
11 
manufacture of the goods which were meant for export. A raid was conducted A 
in his residence on 26.05.2004 by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence 
(DR!) and he was taken in custody. He allegedly was continuously tortured 
for two days. During his detention statements
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.