0000048332 00000 n Questions whether the confessional statements recorded on 13-12-1977 and 14-12-1977 were voluntary statements or were statements which were obtained from the detenu under duress or whether the subsequent retraction of those statements by the detenu on 22-12-1977 was in the nature of an afterthought, were primarily for the detaining authority to consider before deciding to issue the impugned detention order but since admittedly the aforesaid vital facts which would have influenced the mind of the detaining authority one way or the other were neither placed before nor considered by the detaining authority it must be held that there was non-application of mind to the most material and vital facts vitiating the requisite satisfaction of the detaining authority thereby rendering the impugned detention order invalid and illegal.”It may be noted that in the above decision, this Court has held that it was the duty of the Customs Officer to have reported the retraction of the statements to the detaining authority. Jatan Singh, CGSC & Mr. Soayib Qureshi, Advocate for UOI.Payal Garg, wife of the detenu Lokesh Garg, has filed the present writ petition under 2.
At this stage, we may record that Mr. Jatan Singh, Standing Counsel for Union of India, has stated that the counter affidavit filed to the original writ petition may be treated as the counter affidavit filed to the amended writ petition.4. Most of the retractions were made to DRI, and it belongs to the same department as the sponsoring authority, who is the Additional Director, Revenue Intelligence. contains alphabet) Payal Garg. 0000049151 00000 n
Get free access to the complete judgment in Payal Garg Petitioner v. Uoi & Anr.
Indirect or oblique references contained in the reply to the bail application are no substitute for the direct retractions. Whether other grounds should have been taken into consideration or not is not relevant at the stage of the passing of the detention order. The retraction of the statement by Asheesh Chawla has no bearing at all as it in no way could affect the formation of opinion and the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority…”12. From a reading of the grounds of detention it is apparent that a far greater reliance has been placed on the statement of 14.06.2010 than on the statement of 23.07.2010 Furthermore, though the two statements deal with different aspects, there is a clear linkage WP (CRL) No. I was intimidated coerced to make false and involuntary statement which has dictated to me and same are contrary to the documents and record. We find no merit in this submission.31. In the present case the authorities came to the conclusion that the detenus were engaged in smuggling relying on several factors, viz., the search and seizure in detenu's room and recovery of gold biscuits, the detenu's failure to explain the importation of those gold biscuits, the secretive manner in which the gold biscuits were kept, the connection with various dealers and the statements of the employees of the dealers that the detenus used to come with gold bars etc. Finance
Thus they were not considered.10. We have considered the same very minutely and carefully and it appears to us that in fact there were not two grounds but only one ground and the non-placement of the retraction of the confessional statement by the detenu before the detaining authority and non-consideration of the same while arriving at his subjective satisfaction in making the order of detention goes to the root of the order of detention and in our considered opinion makes the order of detention invalid.4.
0000001109 00000 n of Kerala [In the said case also the detenue, after he was produced before the Magistrate, had retracted the confessional statement but the same was not placed before the detaining authority. The most important of these documents which were not placed before the detaining authority were the retractions given by Kuresh Rajkotwala to DRI dated 4-12-2006, Kuresh Rajkotwala's affidavit filed before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Esplanade, Mumbai, Bharat Chavhan's retraction to DRI dated 9-5-2008, Bipin Thaker's retraction to DRI dated 19-1-2008, Sharad Bhoite's retraction dated 24-4-2007 before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Esplanade, Mumbai and his affidavit filed before the same authority, etc.30. The Supreme Court noted that a reading of the whole of the detention order clearly showed that the detaining authority had placed reliance entirely upon the statement of the detenu, Vinod K. Chawla, himself and the documents and materials recovered from the business premises and godowns of the firms which were admittedly owned by the detenu.
This contention cannot be accepted. In Paragraph 21 again, reference is made to the statement of the detenu dated 9 March, 2010 and reference to the said statement continues in Paragraph 22.12. View Payal Garg’s profile on LinkedIn, the world's largest professional community.