NIRANJAN KUMAR Vs. DRI NEW DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr. P. C. for issuing necessary directions to the respondent to place on record the file of cofeposa from the office of respondent no. 1.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that a complaint under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 was filed by the respondent against the petitioner which is presently pending in the Court of ACMM, New Delhi. The charges were directed to be framed against the petitioner for the said offence. The petitioner feeling aggrieved against the order directing the framing of the charge for the aforesaid section, filed a revision petition which came to be listed in the Court of Ms. Ravinder Kaur, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dwarka, New Delhi. In this revision petition the petitioner filed an application for production of COFEPOSA record before the Revisionist Court. The case of the petitioner was that he had not made any statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. There was no recovery effected from him and despite this he was detained under COPEPOSA. The petitioner had appeared before the Advisory Board and it had quashed the detention order. The petitioner accordingly wanted the production of the record of the Advisory Board quashing the detention order under COPEPOSA. The learned additional Sessions Judge called for the report on the application of the petitioner and observed as under: "report has been received from the government of India, Ministry of Finance, cofeposa, that the required file is not available being 24 years old. So the matter is adjourned for arguments on 22. 05. 2009. "

(3.) THE petitioner has felt aggrieved by this order and has accordingly prayed that the High Court in exercise of its power under Section 482 Cr. P. C. may direct the respondent to place the said file before the learned Additional sessions Judge or alternatively in case the record is not available the petitioner be permitted to file an affidavit stating his stand before the revisionist Court.