0

Delhi Excise Policy Case: AAP Leaders involvement in Liquor Scam

Introduction

The controversial Delhi Excise Policy 2021-22 was introduced on November 17, 2021 with an aim to revolutionize the liquor retail landscape in the capital. Its objectives were to maximize revenue for the state, combat liquor mafia and black marketing, improve the consumer experience and ensure equitable distribution of liquor vends. It marked the withdrawal of the government from the business of selling liquor and allowed only private operators to run the liquor shops. The government also made the rules flexible for licensees, such as allowing them to offer discounts and set their own prices instead of selling on MRP fixed by the government. These reforms increased the Government’s revenue by 27 percent, generating around Rs. 8900 crore.

Under the new policy, the city was divided into 32 zones inviting firms to bid on the zones. Instead of individual licences, bidding was done zone-by-zone. Each municipal ward would have 2-3 vends. Also, licenses for 849 retail vends were issued through open bidding by the Excise department as opposed to 475 liquors shops run by the four government agencies, and 389 by the private operators under the old liquor policy.

For the first time, shops were allowed to offer discounts to retail customers, which attracted crowds and reduced the number of dry days from 21 to 3. The new policy also had a provision for home delivery of liquor. It even proposed lowering the drinking age from 25 to 21. It also suggested the opening of shops till 3 am. However, these were not implemented.

However, after a series of vehement opposition and allegations of procedural irregularities the Government of Delhi withdrew the policy on August 1st, 2022 and reverted to the old excise regime.

Report of Chief Secretary

The Chief Secretary found procedural lapses and irregularities in the new policy and submitted a report on the same to the Lieutenant Governor and Chief Minister of Delhi. According to the report, Manish Sisodia, Head of the Excise Department was accused of making changes to the excise policy without the approval of the L-G, such as allowing a waiver of Rs 144.36 crore on the tendered licence fee. Further, the arbitrary and unilateral decisions taken by then Minister resulted in financial losses to the exchequer, estimated at more than Rs 580 crore.

The law governing this subject states that if any changes are made to a policy that has already been implemented, the excise department needs to place them before the cabinet, and forward it to the L-G for final approval. However, the changes made by the Deputy CM did not comply with these mandates. Therefore, the policy implemented without the approval of the cabinet and L-G was illegal, and violative of the Delhi Excise Rules, 2010 and the Transaction of Business Rules, 1993.

Timeline of Events leading to the Arrest of AAP leaders

July 8, 2022: Chief Secretary submits report to L-G office alleging procedural lapses in excise policy implementation. L-G writes to MHA recommending CBI inquiry in matter.

July 30: Sisodia says Government to revert to old excise policy

Aug 6: L-G nod to suspend ex-excise commissioner, IAS officer Arava Gopi Krishna, Dy Commissioner Anand Tiwari

Aug 17: CBI files FIR

Aug 19: CBI Raids Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia and Others on Delhi LG’s Recommendation, followed by Enforcement Directorate’s money laundering probe on liquor policy.

Sept 28 : CBI arrests Vijay Nair, the Aam Aadmi Party’s Chief of Communications.

Oct 10: CBI arrests Abhishek Boinpally

Nov 14: ED arrests Boinpally and Nair

Nov 24: CBI files Cargesheet; names 7

November 26: ED files first prosecution complaint/ chargesheet. Alleges excise policy “formulated with deliberate loopholes”, which “promoted cartel formations through back door” to benefit AAP leaders

January 6, 2023: ED files second prosecution com- plaint/supplementary chargesheet claiming CM allegedly spoke to one of main accused, Sameer Mahendru, asked him to continue working with co-accused Nair who he referred to as “his boy”.

January 14: CBI visits Sisodia’s office. He calls it “raid”, CBI denies

February 19: Sisodia says CBI called him for questioning again. Seeks week’s time

February 26: Sisodia arrested

March 2023: The Enforcement Directorate detains Manish Sisodia, the former deputy chief minister of Delhi.

October: AAP Leader Sanjay Singh is arrested by the Enforcement Directorate, and the first summons is issued to Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal in connection with the liquor policy fraud.

November 2023: On November 2, Kejriwal flies to Singrauli, Madhya Pradesh, to address a political rally instead of responding to the ED’s first summons.

December 2023: Kejriwal ignores the second summons, saying it is ‘illegal and politically motivated’. The ED sends Kejriwal a third summons to appear for questioning on January 3.

January 2024: Kejriwal misses the third summons for alleged conspiracy by the Central government. In the same month, the ED issues a fourth summons to the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) convenor, asking him to appear for questioning on January 18. Kejriwal responds to the Enforcement Directorate’s summons to him, asking the agency why notices were issued. The ED follows up by issuing its fifth summons.

February 2024: For the fifth time, Kejriwal ignores the Enforcement Directorate’s summons. An ED court filing from February said that the AAP politician was not following the summons. Kejriwal was granted a one-day reprieve from making a personal appearance by a Delhi court in February.

March 2024: In response to two allegations from the ED against Kejriwal for allegedly ignoring its summonses in the case, a sessions judge grants him bail.

Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal files a petition with the Delhi High Court challenging ED summonses. He informed the Delhi High Court that he will not appear before the Enforcement Directorate due to a “clear intent” to arrest him during the upcoming elections.

The Delhi High Court refused to provide Kejriwal any protection from coercive action. Consequently, Kejriwal petitioned before the Supreme Court for protection against any coercive action by the ED.

Therefore, on account of ignoring nine summonses issued by the agency for questioning, the ED arrests Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal.

Matter referred to CBI

The report of the Chief Secretary was referred to the CBI, which subsequently, led to the arrest of the then Delhi Deputy CM Manish Sisodia. 14 members belonging to AAP party were also made accused in its FIR.

Enforcement Directorate role in the case

Two cases, one by CBI and one on alleged money laundering being investigated by ED, have been registered in relation to the excise policy. The ED told the court that the alleged proceeds of crime amounted to more than Rs 292 crore, and that it was necessary to establish the modus operandi.

Manish Sisodia arrested in February 2023

AAP leader Sisodia has been under judicial custody since February 26 last year, after he was arrested by the CBI, which is also probing the “procedural lapses” in the policy execution. Sisodia is alleged to have “destroyed evidence” by changing his phone frequently, and the profit margin for wholesalers has been changed from 5 per cent to 12 per cent, among other accusations.

The case investigation began two months after Delhi LG VK Saxena assumed office in May 2022. He recommended a CBI probe into the malafide activities around the repealed policy.

BRS leader K Kavitha arrested on March 15

The Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) leader K Kavitha also approached the Supreme Court over a plea against her arrest in the same probe. However, the court refused to take up her petition and asked her to approach the trial court first. Kavitha is alleged to have “plotted” with Kejriwal and jailed former Delhi deputy CM Manish Sisodia to get “favours” in excise policy. The agency claims that she is linked to a “south group” which paid about Rs 100 crore to AAP for skewing the policy in their favour.

Kejriwal arrested on March 21st 2023

The Chief Minister filed a challenged his arrest before the Supreme Court. But, when the Court directed to try the case first before the lower courts in the similar matter involving Kavitha, the Minister withdrew his suit and contested before the High Court. A fresh plea in HC against ED, has been filed seeking protection from any coercive action by the ED.

References

  1. https://delhiexcise.gov.in/pdf/Delhi_Excise_Policy_for_the_year_2021-22.pdf
  2. https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Delhi/delhi-excise-policy-scam-more-high-profile-persons-can-be-arrested-cbi-submits-in-court/article67964861.ece
  3. https://www.business-standard.com/politics/explained-what-is-delhi-excise-policy-case-and-why-was-kejriwal-arrested-124032200283_1.html
  4. https://byjus.com/free-ias-prep/delhis-liquor-policy-upsc-notes/
  5. https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/politics/delhi-excise-policy-case-a-timeline-of-the-events-12505711.html
0

D K Basu guidelines on Protection and Arrest of Detenu restated; Supreme Court directs Police & Probe Agencies to strictly follow the norms on Arrest

Case title – Somnath vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Case no. – Special Leave Petition (CRL.) NO.2600 OF 2019

Decision on – March 18th, 2024

Quoram – Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah

Facts of the case

The complainant filed an FIR as he lost Rs.30,000/- when he visited the Holy Nath Temple to attend the last rites of his brother-in law. The appellant was arrested in connection with the said crime on the basis of CCTV footage. Subsequently, the appellant was produced before the Magistrate and was handed over to the investigating agency. It prepared a memorandum under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 showing recovery of Rs.30,000/-  from the house of the appellant. Further, during the period of police custody, the appellant was allegedly taken out of the lock-up by the Police Inspector, who handcuffed and paraded him half-naked with garland of footwear around his neck. The Respondent 2 (R2) also verbally and physically assaulted him with reference to his caste.

Later, the appellant on being remanded to the judicial custody filed an application for bail in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class. The Court granted a conditional bail. Consequently, instead of releasing him, the respondent captivated him in the Police Station.

One of the relatives of the appellant pleaded before the Judicial Magistrate, for issuance of Show-Cause Notice to the concerned police officer. Pursuant to the complaint filed by the appellant, the Sub Divisional Police Officer inquired into it and prepared the report. The Report affirmed the above allegations against the Respondent 2 and recorded that despite grant of bail to the appellant he was illegally detained by R2 for four hours.

The appellant, based on the actions of R2, filed a writ petition before the Bombay HC and pleaded for initiation of departmental inquiry and criminal proceedings under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against him and sought for compensation. The HC by the impugned Judgment, partly allowed the petition, wherein it awarded Rs.75,000/- compensation payable by R2 but declined to give any direction for initiating criminal action against him under the SC/ST Act.

Submission by the Appellant

The Counsel submitted that it would be a travesty of justice if such blatant violation of the personal liberty of the appellant and abuse of authority by the R2 is waived off with just “strict warning” without any real effective punishment. It was submitted that, while the appellant was in the custody of police, R2 failed to comply with the guidelines laid down in D K Basu v State of West Bengal and Sube Singh v State of Haryana and thus pleaded to inflict major punishment upon him.

Submission by the Respondent

The Counsel submitted that in terms of Section 161 of the Police Act, the prosecution against the police officer acting under colour of official duty after six months of the alleged act cannot be entertained and contended that the High Court had rightly declined the plea to direct any action on such prosecution.

Court’s Analysis and Judgement

The Supreme Court on perusal of the enquiry report of the Commission noted that there was sufficient material evidence to conclude that R2 committed excesses against the appellant. It observed that R2 being in a position of power, totally abused his official position.

The Court stated that there must be zero-tolerance approach towards such high-handed acts committed by persons in power against an ordinary citizen as the same would bring shame to the entire justice delivery system. The Court in the view of justice, though resorted to Article 142 to direct initiation of criminal proceedings, it refused to do so, considering the fact that respondent no.2 had retired and paid sufficient compensation in accordance with the order and judgement of the Commission and HC respectively. Hence, asserted that justice ought to be tempered with mercy.

Accordingly, the Court upheld the decision of HC and disposed of the appeal.

The Court however was saddened by the fact that it had to restate the principles and directions laid down in D K Basu case for the protection of detenu. It relied on various authorities and noted that the dignity of individuals must be protected in all circumstances and the police officers ought to be sensitive about the personal liberty of citizens and must refrain from excess use of force.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Keerthi K

Click here to view the Judgement

0

Delhi HC: The accused’s “arrest” or “custody” is a prerequisite for the application of Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.

Case Title : Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Dura Line India Pvt. Ltd. (DIPL) & Ors.

Case No: CC No. 272/2022

Quorum: Honorable Justice Navin Chawla

Facts of the case:-

Taking a look at the case’s facts, the criminal complaint mentioned above stems from an order issued by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India (abbreviated as “MCA”) on December 5, 2018, pursuant to Section 212 (1)(c) of the Act, which commands the respondent to conduct an investigation into the business dealings of the accused company, M/s Dura Line India Pvt. Ltd. (DIPL). The respondent gave the MCA the inquiry report dated 25.03.2020 and a corrigendum dated 19.07.2021 after the inquiry was finished. The MCA granted the required instructions and directions to the respondent to file and begin the complaint against the accused parties, including the applicant(s) herein, via Order dated 19.03.2021, passed under Section 212 (14) of the Act. As a result, the complaint in this case was filed.

Legal Provisions:-

The above complaint has been filed by the respondent herein under Section 439(2) read with Section 436 (1)(a), (d) and Section 436 (2) read with Section 212 (6) and Section 212(15) of the Companies Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) read with Section 193 of the Cr.P.C., on which, by an order dated 16.07.2022 passed by the learned Trial Court, the Applicant(s) herein has been summoned as an accused for offence under Sections 447 and 448 read With Sections 447, 449, 96 read with Section 99; Section 135 read With Section 450 of the Act as far as applicants Abraham George and Mahendra Gambhir are concerned, and Sections 447 and 448 read With Section 447 of the Act as far as the applicant Yogesh Sudhanshu is concerned.

Appellant Contentions:-

On the other hand, the learned counsel(s) for the applicant(s),setting dependence on the judgments of the preeminent court in Bharat Chaudhary & Anr. V. State of Bihar & Anr., (2003) 8 SCC 77;Ravindra Saxena v. State of Rajasthan, (2010) 1 SCC 684; and of the division seat of this court in P.V. Narsimha Rao v. State (CBI),ILR (1997) I Del 507; and of the facilitate seats of this court in P.V. Narsimha Rao v. State (CBI), 1997 SCC Online Del 19, and Deepak Anand v. State & Anr. 2018 SCC Online Del 11875; and of The Tall Court of Uttrakhand in Saubhagya Bhagat v. State of Uttarakhand & Anr., (Judgment dated 24.08.2023 passed in expectant safeguard application No. 76/2021) yield that, just since a complaint/charge-sheet has been recorded, it cannot be said that an application beneath area 438 of the Cr.P.C. will now not be viable or that there will be no sensible premise for an trepidation within the charged that he should be captured or taken into guardianship once he shows up some time recently the learned trial court in compliance with the summons issued to him. They advance yield that the accommodation of the learned guide for the respondent that the candidates, on their appearance some time recently the learned trial court in reply to the summons, will be taken into ‘custody’ and not ‘arrested’, is misleading, because as ‘custody’ takes after ‘arrest’, as has moreover been clarified within the judgment of the preeminent court in Deepak Mahajan (Supra), depended upon by the learned advise for the respondent.

On the uncommon conditions to be met for being discharged on safeguard beneath area 212(6) of the Act, the learned counsel(s) for the applicant(s) submits that, as within the show case, the candidates were not captured amid the course of examination by the respondent, in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil (Supra) examined along with arrange dated 21.03.2023 within the same procedures, detailed as 2023 SCC Online SC 452, the common standards overseeing safeguard are to be similarly connected to the allow of expectant safeguard and, so, as the applicant(s) were not captured amid the period of examination, they are entitled to allow of expectant safeguard from this court. On the reason for the trepidation of the applicant(s) that they may be taken into guardianship in case they show up some time recently the learned trial court, the learned counsel(s) for the applicant(s) have placed reliance on the judgments of this court in Suman Chadha v. Genuine Extortion Examination Office, 2023 SCC Online Del 4174; Dr. Bindu Rana v. Genuine Extortion Examination Office, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 276; and, Taranjeet Singh Bagga v. Genuine Extortion Examination Office, 2023 SCC Online Del 893, to submit that people against whom comparable complaints were recorded by the respondent some time recently the same learned trial court, they were taken into care, in show disdain toward of them not being captured during the course of examination by the respondent, and they could get safeguard as it were from this court after a prolonged period of imprisonment.

They yield that, subsequently, the dread of the candidates, that they may be captured once they show up some time recently the learned trial court in reply to the summons, cannot be said to be whimsical or without any premise. They encourage yield that there are no affirmations of the applicant(s) being a flight chance or likely to alter with prove or impact witnesses. The learned guide for the candidate in safeguard Appln. 3739/2022-Sh. Yogesh Sudhanshu Kumar assist submits that the Candidate has joined the examination, the trial is likely to require long, the applicant has clean forerunners, may be a senior citizen and may be a Resident of Pune, Maharashtra, having multiple sicknesses.

He submits that the candidate was allowed intervals security vide arrange dated 15.12.2022. There’s no affirmation of him abusing the relief so allowed by this court. He submits that the fabric charges within the complaint relate to period after the candidate had surrendered.

Respondent Contentions

The learned advise for the respondent raised a preparatory protest on the practicality of the show applications. He submits that as the applicant(s) has been summoned on a complaint recorded by the respondent some time recently the learned trial court, an application beneath segment 438 of the Cr.P.C. by the applicant(s) would not be viable; the as it were cure accessible to the applicant(s) is to apply for safeguard beneath segment 439 of the Cr.P.C. The learned direct for the respondent submits that an application beneath segment 438 of the Cr.P.C. is viable as it were where the individual has reason to accept or an trepidation that he may get captured on the allegation of having committed a non-bailable offence. He submits that, in fact, the applicant(s) was not captured some time recently the recording of the complaint.

Once a complaint has been recorded, the learned trial court, after looking into the nature of the allegations that have been made within the complaint and upon hearing the applicant(s), may take the candidate into ‘custody’. He submits that there’s a distinction within the lawful meaning and suggestions of the terms ‘arrest’ and ‘custody’, as has been clarified by the preeminent court in its judgments in Directorate of Requirement v. Deepak Mahajan,(1994) 3 SCC 440 and Sundeep Kumar Bafna v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., (2014) 16 SCC 623.Setting dependence on the judgment of the Preeminent Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Examination & Anr. (2022) 10 SCC 51, he submits that the give of safeguard in case of a complaint beneath segment 212 (6) of the Act, is circumscribed by the uncommon conditions endorsed in that and the common rules for thought of an application for safeguard cannot be connected.

Putting dependence on the judgment of the preeminent court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565, he submits that for allowing expectant safeguard to any individual, it is vital for him to appear that he has reasons to accept that he may get captured. He yield that, in the present case, as the applicant was not captured amid the course of the examination by the respondent. He does not have any reason to accept that he may get captured once. He shows up some time recently the learned trial court in reply to the summons issued to him. He submits that just since the learned trial court.

Few cases, has rejected the application recorded by the denounced in that for being discharged on safeguard, it cannot moreover donate rise to such a conviction within the applicant(s) that in the event that they apply for safeguard some time recently the learned trial court. The same should be rejected and they might be taken into guardianship.

Court Analysis and Judgement:-

In the entire process of investigation leading to the filing of the complaint, the applicant(s) were never arrested by the respondent and it is not disputed that the applicant(s) have cooperated in the investigation. Applying the test as laid down by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil (Supra), therefore, in my view, the applicant(s) are entitled to grant of anticipatory bail. Needless to state, that nothing in this judgment should be taken to detract from the position that economic offences are serious in nature, and the allegations against the applicant and other co-accused, if proved at the trial, must be met with requisite punishment.

However, that punishment must follow conviction, and the severity of the allegations, by itself cannot be a justification for pre-trial incarceration. It is, therefore, ordered that in case of arrest, the applicant(s) be released on bail in CC No. 272/2022 titled Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Dura Line India Pvt. Ltd. (DIPL) & Ors. Pending before the learned trial court, subject to furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each, with one local surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court, And further subject to the following conditions:

i .The applicant(s) shall appear in the trial unless otherwise exempted from personal appearance by the learned trial court.

 ii. The applicant(s) shall not contact, nor visit, nor offer any inducement, threat or promise to any of the prosecution witnesses or other persons acquainted with the facts of case. The applicant(s) shall not tamper with evidence nor otherwise indulge in any act or omission that is unlawful or that would prejudice the proceedings in the pending trial;

iii. In addition to the above conditions, it is specifically directed that the applicant(s) shall also not, whether directly or indirectly, contact or visit, or have any transaction with any of the officials/employees of the banks or financial institutions, companies, entities, etc., who are concerned with the subject matter of the case, whether in India or abroad;

The bail applications are disposed of in the above terms. The pending applications are disposed of as infructuous.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Analysis Written by – K. Immey Grace

Click here to view the judgement

 

 

0

Self-incriminating statements not expected to be made under the threat of interim protection cancellation: Supreme Court

Case title – Bijendar VS State of Haryana

Case no. – Criminal Appeal No(S). OF 2024 (Arising from SLP (Crl.)No(s). 1079/2024)

Order passed on – March 06, 2024

Quoram – Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Sanjay Kumar

Facts of the case

Bijendar is a Junior Engineer (Electrical) at the Municipal Corporation, Sonepat, Haryana. A complaint was filed against him alleging that he has taken bribe to sign the proposal to enhance the cost estimate for upgrading a building of the Municipal Corporation, Sonepat, to a ‘green building’. The Municipal Corporation alleged that such an exercise by the appellant led to inflating the tender value.

The appellant filed an application before the High Court for the grant of an anticipatory bail in the present matter. But, his plea was rejected by the Court. Subsequently, the order was challenged before the Apex Court.

The Supreme Court in its order dated 05.02.2024 granted interim protection to the appellant on an obligatory condition that the appellant had to cooperate with the investigating agency.

Issue – Detention of the appellant at the investigation stage

Submissions on behalf of the State

The learned counsel for the State opposed the appellant’s plea for pre-arrest bail by filing a counter affidavit. The Counsel submitted that, though the appellant had joined the investigation as per the Court’s order, he neither cooperated with the police for the recovery of bribe amount nor disclosed the other facts of the case. Hence, he contended that a custodial investigation of the appellant was necessary for thorough investigation.

Court’s observation and order

The Court decided only on the issue of detention of the appellant at the investigation stage and did not test on the legality of the case instituted against him. The Court refused to treat the instances of non-cooperation on the part appellant as a justification for dismissal of the interim protection. The Court held that the accused on bail is not expected to make incriminating statements under the threat of withdrawal of interim protection.

The Court, in the absence of any aggravating factor refused to allow custodial interrogation and therefore, directed the appellant to continue his cooperation with the investigating officer during the period of investigation. Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Keerthi K

Click here to view the Judgement

0

A Magistrate must do a thorough check of the evidence at hand before ordering detention of a person: Gujarat High Court quashes detention order issued against the petitioner

Shankarlal Sohanlal Sharma vs State Of Gujarat

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6713 of 2023

Date: 21/04/2023

Bench: Honourable Justice AS Supheia

Facts

In the instant case, the petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the Order of Detention passed by respondent No.2- District Magistrate, Surat, in exercise of powers under Section 3 (2) of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980, by which he had been detained with a view to prevent him from acting in a prejudicial manner to the maintenance of supplies of the commodities essential to the community.

Section 3(2) confers power on the Magistrate to detain any person to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community.

The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner contended that the order is void and arbitrary and had been passed without adequate evidence. Moreover, the authority had made a breach of a statutory obligation as it failed to inform the state Government regarding the order passed. He further submitted that the rights conferred upon the petitioner by Article 22, Clause (5) of the Constitution of India have been violated, firstly by not informing the grounds on which the order of detention has been passed, and secondly, by not deciding the representation made by the detenu against the order of detention. Article 22(5) states that whenever any person is detained under a law providing for preventive detention, the authority concerned shall inform the state government within 7 days from the detention.

On the other hand, the opposite party opposed the petition and submitted that the petitioner had indulged in such activities which is prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of essential commodities. He, therefore, urged that the petition deserves to be dismissed.

Judgement

The Court, considering the facts of the present case, found that some of the documents supplied along with the detention order to the detenu were not legible and statements of certain witnesses had also not been supplied to the petitioner, thus, the detaining authority had failed in supplying relevant documents relied upon by it for passing the detention order. Due to this reason, the Court allowed the petition and quashed the order of detention against the petitioner.

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY AMIT ARAVIND

click here to view judgement

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”