Are you looking for a legal research tool ?
Get Started
Do check other products like LIBIL, a legal due diligence tool to get a litigation check report and Case Management tool to monitor and collaborate on cases.

Delhi Development Authority & Anr v. Uoi And Anr

Delhi Development Authority & Anr v. Uoi And Anr

(High Court Of Delhi)

Criminal Writ Petition No. 425 of 2012 | 10-09-2012

Honble Mr. Justice A.K. Pathak

1. With a view to prevent respondent No. 2 from indulging in smuggling activities, Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance passed an order of preventive detention on 4th October, 2010 against the respondent No. 2, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short, hereinafter referred to as the Act). Respondent challenged the order dated 4th October, 2010 by filing Writ Petition in this Court which was dismissed as withdrawn. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 has filed a Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India before the Honble Supreme Court, which is since pending along with bunch of similar writ petitions. An application for staying the detention order was filed in the said Writ Petition, however, it is admitted that no stay has been granted by the Supreme Court. Respondent No. 2 has successfully evaded the execution of detention order. Accordingly, petitioner has filed a report under Section 7(1) (a) of the COFEPOSA Act before the Metropolitan Magistrate for initiating the proceedings under Sections 82/83/84. of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) against the respondent No. 2. Instead of proceeding with the said proceedings, Trial Court has adjourned the matter awaiting the outcome of Writ Petition. Similar question arose before a Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition (Crl.) 933/2012 tilted Union of India versus State & Another wherein it has been held thus:-

Be that as it may, the fact remains that Honble Supreme Court has not stayed the ongoing proceedings initiated by the learned ACMM for declaring Mr. Mohan Lal Arora as a proclaimed offender. So there was no justification for the learned ACMM to keep those proceedings in abeyance.

2. In this case also, Honble Supreme Court has not stayed the proceedings, therefore, Trial Court was not justified in keeping the proceedings under Section 82/83 Cr.P.C. in abeyance. Accordingly, petition is allowed and impugned order is set aside. Trial Court shall proceed, in accordance with law, on the prayer of petitioner declaring the respondent No. 2 as proclaimed offender.

Petition is disposed of in the above terms.

Dasti.

Advocate List
  • For Petitioner : Mr. Satish Aggarwala, Mr. Sushil Kaushik
  • Ms. Khushboo Garg, Advocates
  • For Respondent : Mr. Saleem Ahmed, ASC with Ms. Charu Dalal, Adv. alongwith SI Naresh Kumar, P.S. Rani Bagh
  • Mr. Deepak Kumar, Adv.
Bench
  • HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK
Eq Citations
  • (2013) 259 CTR (DEL) 518
  • [2013] 214 TAXMAN 130 (DEL)
  • [2013] 350 ITR 432 (DEL)
  • LQ/DelHC/2012/4473
Head Note

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Ss. 82/83/84 — Proclaimed offender — Trial Court adjourning matter awaiting outcome of Writ Petition — Held, no stay having been granted by Supreme Court, Trial Court was not justified in keeping proceedings under Ss. 82/83 Cr.P.C. in abeyance — Trial Court directed to proceed in accordance with law on prayer of petitioner declaring respondent as proclaimed offender — Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, S. 7(1)(a)