UNION OF INDIA THROUGH JOINT SECRETARY (COFEPOSA), MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI versus ANKIT ASHOK JALAN

Citation: [2019] 14 S.C.R. 169 · Decided: 22-11-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Disposed off
cites 9 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
169
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH
JOINT SECRETARY (COFEPOSA),
MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI
v.
ANKIT ASHOK JALAN
(Criminal Appeal No. 1746 OF 2019)
NOVEMBER 22, 2019
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, INDIRA BANERJEE AND
M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of
Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 – Passing of detention order in case
of person already in judicial custody – Subjective satisfaction of
the Detaining Authority– One ‘A’ carrying 8 Kgs. of gold of foreign
origin valued at Rs.2.71 crores approx. intercepted by the Directorate
of Revenue Intelligence, Kolkata Zonal Unit – He indicated that he
was engaged by the detenus – Detenus apprehended – Bail rejected–
Remanded to judicial custody– Detention orders passed by the
Detaining Authority– Writ petition filed by the respondent
challenging the detention orders against his father and brother
(detenus)– High Court quashed and set aside the detention orders
– In appeal by both the parties and writ petitions filed by various
writ petitioners, held: Detaining Authority while passing the
detention orders was aware of the fact that the detenus are actually
in custody; that there is a real possibility of their being released on
bail; and that on being so released they would in all probability
indulge in prejudicial activities and therefore it is essential to prevent
them from smuggling of gold and foreign currency in future –
Detention orders show the application of mind by the Detaining
Authority – Detenus were granted bail by the Court on the very
date the orders of detention were quashed by the High Court,
therefore, the apprehension in the mind of the Detaining Authority
that the detenus are likely to be released on bail was well founded
and fortified – Further, when the detention orders were passed by
the Detaining Authority, neither the Sponsoring Authority nor even
   [2019] 14 S.C.R. 169
169
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
170
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 14 S.C.R.
the Detaining Authority was aware of any retraction petition of ‘A’
– No occasion and/or reason for the Detaining Authority to consider
his retraction statement – Thus, it cannot be said that on non-
consideration of A’s retraction petition, the detention orders were
vitiated – High Court erred in interfering with the subjective
satisfaction of the Detaining Authority – Impugned judgment set
aside – Detention orders of the respective detenus restored –
Detenus be taken into custody forthwith by the Detaining Authority
– In view of the judgment in Criminal Appeal arising from SLP
(Criminal) No. 7010/2019, no merit found in the present writ petitions
– Customs Act, 1962 – s.104, 108 – Constitution of India –
Arts.22(5), 32.
Disposing of the matters, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The Detaining Authority while passing the
detention orders was aware of the fact that the detenus are actually
in custody; that there is a real possibility of their being released
on bail; and that on being so released they would in all probability
indulge in prejudicial activities and therefore it is essential to
prevent them from smuggling of gold and foreign currency in
future. Even if a person is in judicial custody, he can be detained
under the relevant provisions of the concerned Act, like
COFEPOSA etc. However, there must be a proper application of
mind and the Detaining Authority must have been subjectively
satisfied on considering the relevant material that there is a
reason to believe that there is a real possibility of detenus being
released on bail and that on being so released the detenus will in
all probability indulge in prejudicial activities. In the recent
decision, Supreme Court in Dimple Happy Dhakad observed and
held (i) that the order of detention validly can be passed against
a person in custody and for that purpose it is necessary that the
grounds of detention must show whether the Detaining Authority
was aware of the fact that the detenu was already in custody; (ii)
that the Detaining Authority must be further satisfied that the
detenu is likely to be released from custody and the nature of
activities of the detenu indicate that if he is released, he is likely
to indulge in such prejudicial activities and therefore, it is
necessary to detain him in order to prevent him from engaging in
such activities; and (iii) the satisfaction of the Detaining Authority
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
171
that the detenu is already in custody and is likely to be released
on bail and on being released, he is likely to indulge in the same
prejudic
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.