Special Civil Application No. 3716 of 1995. Case: Bipinchandra G. Chockshi and Ors. Vs State of Gujarat and Ors.. High Court of Gujarat (India)
Case Number | Special Civil Application No. 3716 of 1995 |
Counsel | For Appellant: S.H. Sanjanwala, Sr. Advocate and Dilip L. Kanojiya, Advocate and For Respondents: Utkarsh Sharma, AGP |
Judges | S. G. Shah, J. |
Issue | Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 - Sections 12A, 3(1)(c), 6(1); Constitution of India - Articles 14, 21, 226; Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators Forfeiture of Property Act, 1976 - Section 6 |
Judgement Date | March 22, 2016 |
Court | High Court of Gujarat (India) |
Judgment:
S. G. Shah, J.
1. This petition is dragged for all these 21 years for no valid reason when the issue involved in the petition has already been decided by several decisions of different High Courts as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. However, the respondents have instead of conceding to the settled legal position so also the admitted position on the face of the present case itself, selected to argue and oppose the petition and therefore, though petition can be disposed of summarily, it becomes necessary to recollect several factual details.
2. It is undisputed fact that there is an order of detention dated 11.6.1976 u/s. 12A of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 ('COFEPOSA', for short) so also the order dated 11.6.1976 u/s. 6(1) of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulations (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 ('SAFEMA', for short), against the petitioner therefore the petitioner has prayed to quash and set-aside such orders by issuance of appropriate writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, claiming that the detention order and notice to forfeit his property is illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India. It is also undisputed fact that similar order was passed against other three brothers of the present petitioner and they all have filed separate writ petitions and challenged the similar order of detention wherein they succeeded in quashing and setting aside such order of detention. Such judgment is in Special Criminal Application Nos. 125 and 127 of 1974 by Division Bench of this High Court as back as on 5.11.1974. It is also undisputed fact that while quashing and setting aside the detention orders of all the brothers of the present petitioner, the Division Bench has categorically observed as under:--
It is, therefore, difficult for us to accept the version of the detaining authority that because of this defect in the voucher for which the purchasers, Messrs Gamanlal Vithaldas Chokshi, were in no way responsible, though there is no compulsion to put individual numbers on silver bars and since even the customs officials themselves countersigned the transport voucher without insisting on the individual numbers of the silver bars, two partners, one the main partner, and the other an active partner in the firm of Messrs Gamanlal Vithaldas Chokshi should be detained under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act by the District Magistrate, Surat. A grosser case than this is yet to be seen. Liberty of two citizens of the State has been put in jeopardy from September 22, 1974 till today because the District Magistrate did not apply his mind properly to the facts of the case and without going deep into the case, has accepted the word of the customs officials at its face value, namely, these partners of the firm of Messers Gamanlal Vithaldas Choksi were engaged either in smuggling goods or dealing in smuggled goods or abetting other persons to smuggle goods. This single transaction in connection with ten silver bars which were seized by the customs...
To continue reading
Request your trial