ADISHWAR JAIN Vs. UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(SC)-2006-10-65
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PUNJAB & HARYANA)
Decided on October 19,2006

ADISHWAR JAIN Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

MOHAMMAD HANIEF BHAT VS. UT OF J&K [LAWS(J&K)-2022-4-8] [REFERRED TO]
RANA DUTTA VS. CHAIRMAN, ADVISORY BOARD [LAWS(TRIP)-2019-12-16] [REFERRED TO]
GOLAM HOSSAIN @ GOLAB @ GOLAP VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(TRIP)-2019-12-1] [REFERRED TO]
FAYAZ AHMAD PAUL VS. FAYAZ AHMAD PAUL [LAWS(J&K)-2019-12-33] [REFERRED TO]
THIYAM IMOCHA ALIAS MOCHA SINGH VS. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, IMPHAL WEST DISTRICT [LAWS(GAU)-2012-5-29] [REFERRED TO]
ELIZEBATH GEORGE VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2008-10-22] [REFERRED TO]
J GURUNATHAN ALIAS GURU VS. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND DISTRICT COLLECTOR ARIYALUR DISTRICT [LAWS(MAD)-2008-11-289] [REFERRED TO]
SHABBIRBHAI BOOKWALA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2011-7-167] [REFERRED TO]
MR. IMTIYAZ HUSSAIN VS. THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT SECRETARY [LAWS(BOM)-2016-6-100] [REFERRED TO]
RAJ KUMAR VS. UOI [LAWS(DLH)-2008-8-165] [REFERRED TO]
SHABIR AHMAD DAR VS. UT OF J&K [LAWS(J&K)-2022-7-33] [REFERRED TO]
SAEED ZAKIR HUSSAIN MALIK VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(SC)-2012-8-15] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH SINGH @ KAILA SINGH @ SARDAR VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2013-4-60] [REFERRED TO]
MOHD SHAKIL KHAN VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2012-4-100] [REFERRED TO]
ANJANA RIKABCHAND MEHTA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2014-1-72] [REFERRED TO]
MUKESH TIKAJI BORA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2007-4-62] [REFERRED TO]
ANKIT GULATI VS. UOI & ANR [LAWS(DLH)-2012-9-621] [REFERRED]
SALIYAL BEEVI VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2011-9-32] [REFERRED TO]
NIYAZ AHMED ANSARI VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2015-3-147] [REFERRED TO]
RUTUGNA ARVINDKUMAR TRIVEDI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GJH)-2020-7-54] [REFERRED TO]
SUJITHA VS. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS. [LAWS(KER)-2015-10-130] [REFERRED TO]
K. THILAGAVATHI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2014-7-13] [REFERRED TO]
ADARSH PAL SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2014-8-102] [REFERRED TO]
KAILASH BHAI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MPH)-2008-2-22] [REFERRED TO]
SHRI OMPRAKASH TRILOKI CHANDWANI VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2016-4-301] [REFERRED TO]
NIRMAL SHIL VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(TRIP)-2020-6-56] [REFERRED TO]
FAYAZ AHMAD PAUL VS. STATE OF J&K [LAWS(J&K)-2019-12-133] [REFERRED TO]
RASHID KAPADIA VS. MEDHA GADGIL [LAWS(BOM)-2012-1-108] [REFERRED TO]
THANGAIAH VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2009-4-395] [REFERRED TO]
LICIL ANTONY VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(SC)-2014-4-34] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)Leave granted
(2.)Appellant before us was detained under Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short "COFEPOSA"). He is the Managing Director of a company, registered and incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, known as M/s. Sundesh Springs Private Limited. It was an exporter and held a valid licence therefor. The company was to export products of alloy steel. Upon exporting of alloy steel, it was entitled to credits under the Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB) Scheme introduced by the Government of India with an object of encouraging exports. He allegedly misdeclared both the value and description of goods upon procuring fake and false bills through one Prabhjot Singh. The said Prabhjot Singh was said to have been operating three firms, viz. M/s. S.P. Industrial Corporation, M/s. Aaysons (India) and M/s. P.J. Sales Corporation, Ludhiana. It was allegedly found that non-alloy steel, bars, rods, etc. of value ranging from Rs. 15/- to Rs. 17/- per kg. were exported in the guise of alloy steel forgings, bars, rods, etc. by declaring their value thereof from Rs. 110/- to Rs. 150/- per kg. and the export proceeds over and above the actual price were being routed through Hawala Channel. The officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) searched the factory as well as the residential premises of Appellant and that of Prabhjot Singh. Various incriminating documents were recovered. Appellant and the said Prabhjot Singh made statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act. Prabhjot Singh allegedly admitted to have supplied fake bills to units owned and controlled by Appellant on commission basis without actual supply of the goods. It was also found that Appellant had declared goods exported as "alloy steel" whereas after the tests conducted by Central Revenue Control Laboratory, they were found to be "other than alloy steel", i.e., non-alloy. The Consul (Economic), Consulate General of India at Dubai allegedly confirmed the existence of a parallel set of export invoices. Invoices with a higher value were presented before the Indian Customs Authorities with a view to avail DEPB incentives but in fact invoices with a lower value were presented for clearance.
(3.)On the aforementioned allegations, an order of detention was issued on 5.4.2005. Appellant moved for issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus before the High Court of Judicature of Punjab and Haryana. The said writ petition was dismissed by an order dated 23.11.2005 by a learned Single Judge. A letters patent appeal, concededly which was not maintainable, was filed thereagainst which was dismissed by reason of the impugned judgment.


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