VINOD K CHAWLA Vs. UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(SC)-2006-8-39
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: DELHI)
Decided on August 18,2006

Vinod K Chawla Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

AASEFA KHAN VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2021-7-4] [REFERRED TO]
WAHEEDA ASHRAF VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KER)-2021-4-35] [REFERRED TO]
SANGEETHA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KER)-2021-12-88] [REFERRED TO]
SUJATHA VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF [LAWS(APH)-2018-6-8] [REFERRED TO]
POONAMBEN @ TASLEEM VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2020-3-64] [REFERRED TO]
LAXMAN DASS JALHOTRA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2011-3-115] [REFERRED TO]
NUSHATH KOYAMU VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KER)-2022-6-92] [REFERRED TO]
KUMARI PRABHA SURESH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KER)-2021-10-113] [REFERRED TO]
SHYAM MANIK DEBNATH VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(TRIP)-2019-10-6] [REFERRED TO]
RAM AVATAR MEENA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2014-8-247] [REFERRED TO]
ANKIT GULATI VS. UOI & ANR [LAWS(DLH)-2012-9-621] [REFERRED]
SUBHASH POPATLAL DAVE VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2013-7-112] [REFERRED TO]
ANITHAKUMARI VS. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ADDL CHIEF SECRETARY [LAWS(KER)-2017-4-106] [REFERRED TO]
SAHIL JAIN VS. UOI [LAWS(DLH)-2013-11-67] [REFERRED TO]
RAMJU RAFIKBHAI DAIREYA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2020-6-809] [REFERRED TO]
SRINIVAS @ PAP. VS. THE STATE OF TELANGANA, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD & TWO OTHERS [LAWS(APH)-2017-1-27] [REFERRED TO]
SONU TIWARI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-2013-2-181] [REFERRED TO]
NUSHATH KOYAMU VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KER)-2022-6-345] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. LAISHRAM LINCOLA SINGH [LAWS(SC)-2008-3-219] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This appeal, by special leave, has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 27.1.1999 of High Court of Delhi by which the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the detention order passed against him on 12.2.1997 under Section 3(1) of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short 'COFEPOSA') by the Joint Secretary, Government of India, was dismissed.
(2.)Though the detention order was passed on 12.2.1997 but the same could be served upon the appellant after more than a year on 12.3.1998 when he was taken into custody as he was absconding. The appellant filed the writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution soon thereafter before the Delhi High Court which was dismissed on 27.1.1999. The appellant has already undergone the entire period of detention but he is pursuing the present appeal as he is threatened with proceedings under Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976.
(3.)The grounds of detention mention that the Director of Revenue Intelligence, New Delhi (for short 'DRI') had received information that the appellant was indulging in large scale evasion of customs duty by importing consumer electronic goods at grossly under-invoiced prices and by circumventing Import and Export Policy and remitting payments for the same through illegal channels. The goods were imported through various firms and concerns owned by the appellant. On the basis of the said information, the officers of the DRI conducted simultaneous searches on 20.12.1996 at seven residential/business/factory premises of the appellant, wherein many incriminating articles and documents were recovered. Further searches were also made on 30th December, 1996 and some more goods of foreign origin were recovered which established evasion of excise duty. His statement was recorded on 19th and 20th December, 1996 and 30th January, 1997. On the basis of the material collected, the Joint Secretary to the Government of India passed the impugned order under Section 3(1) of COFEPOSA on 12.2.1997. The appellant evaded service of the detention order and absconded. After great efforts had been made and proceedings had been initiated under Section 7 of COFEPOSA, the appellant was served with the copy of the detention order on 12.3.1998 when he was taken into custody. The representation made by the appellant was rejected by the detaining authority and also by the Central Government after the Advisory Board had recorded an opinion that there was sufficient cause for his detention. The appellant challenged the detention order by filing the writ petition before the High Court of Delhi raising several pleas but the same was dismissed on 27.1.1999.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.