RAMESHKUMAR BALKISHAN CIBAL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both the learned Counsel.

(2.) PETITIONER Rameshkumar Balkishan Cibal is the brother of the detenu Rajkumar Balkishan Cibal. By order dated 1st February, 1996 passed under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1947 (for short COFEPOSA Act) the detenu has been ordered to be detained with a view to preventing him from abetting the smuggling goods, as also concealing and keeping smuggled goods. The offending incident is of 28th June, 1995 when the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Zonal Unit, Mumbai intercepted (i) truck No. H. R-38-6942 near Anjurphata on Bhiwandi bypass of Mumbai Nasik Road at 2100 hours and (ii) truck No. M. P-23-D-2307 on Mumbai Nasik Road approximately 69 K. M. off Mumbai at around 2300 hours alongwith certain occupants. Enquiries with the occupants revealed that they were carrying some consignments of smuggled goods and were to contact the detenu for delivery of the said goods. After detailed examination, it transpired that the goods seized were to be delivered to the detenu. The goods consisted of (i) 272 packages of goods of foreign origin against the declared goods of 337 packages of CTC tea; (ii) 381 packages of goods of foreign origin against the declared goods of 421 bags of DMT chemical and (iii) Goods of foreign origin such as bearings, chemicals, computer parts, video cassettes etc. valued at Rs. 2,40,72,900/- recovered from the total of 653 packages recovered from the above mentioned two trucks. The statement of the detenu was recorded on 29th, 30th June 1995 and on 14th July, 1995 under section 108 of the Customs Act and it transpired that the detenu was acting as a disposal agent of the goods which were smuggled into India from Nepal and then transported to Bhiwandi and Mumbai. It is not necessary to go into the details of the grounds of detention for the reasons indicated hereafter.

(3.) THE only point which Shri Karmali has raised before us, and on which the petitioner is entitled to succeed, is about the delay in execution of the order in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case where on 18th June, 1996 the Intelligence Officer of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence himself made an application (Ex. D page 32) stating that the bail granted earlier had expired on that day namely on 18th June, 1996 and since the investigation was still in progress and papers were being processed, bail period should be extended till 29th August, 1996. Since the petitioner is entitled to succeed on this ground, we find it necessary to reproduce the contents of the application for extension of bail dated 18th June, 1996 which reads as under:<FRM>JUDGEMENT_599_BCR(CRI)_1998Html1.htm</FRM> That on 1-7-95 the abovementioned respondents were produced before Your Worship in connection with the seizure of Bail bearing and Electronic goods and were ordered to be released on bail. The bail period expired today and as the investigations are still in progress and the papers are being processed, I pray that the bail period may kindly be extended to 29-8-96. Solemnly affirmed the aforesaid at Bombay. This 18th day of June, 96 Sd/- Applicant. A. A. No. 1 Pr. Bail period extended till 29-8-96 Sd/- Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Esplanade, Bombay. "