Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Kirit Shrimankar vs U.O.I on 20 November, 2014
Bench: Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, Abhay Manohar Sapre
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CRIMIINAL) No.109/2013
KIRIT SHRIMANKAR Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Respondent(s)
WITH
W.P.(Crl.) No. 110/2013, W.P.(Crl.) No. 112/2013
W.P.(Crl.) No. 114/2013, W.P.(Crl.) No. 175/2013
W.P.(Crl.) No. 198/2013, W.P.(Crl.) No. 65/2014
W.P.(Crl.) No. 78/2014, W.P.(Crl.) No. 88/2014
W.P.(Crl.) No. 90/2014, W.P.(Crl.) No. 94/2014
W.P.(Crl.) No. 95/2014, W.P.(Crl.) No. 96/2014
W.P.(Crl.) No. 124/2014, W.P.(Crl.) No. 141/2014
W.P.(Crl.) No. 144/2014, W.P.(Crl.) No. 146/2014
W.P.(Crl.) No. 151/2014, W.P.(Crl.) No. 153/2014
W.P.(Crl.) No. 163/2014, W.P.(Crl.) No. 169/2014
W.P.(Crl.) No. 172/2014, W.P.(Crl.) No. 174/2014
W.P.(Crl.) No. 176/2014; W.P.(Crl.) No. 187/2014
O R D E R
Facts are being taken from W.P.(Crl) No.109/2013, which is the lead case in this batch of matters.
Heard learned counsel for the parties. In the course of hearing of the Writ Petition, we find that the writ petition was premature.
Signature Not VerifiedThe petitioners seek for Digitally signed by Narendra Prasad the prayers as have been couched in the writ petition where the Date: 2014.11.26 15:43:45 IST Reason:
petitioners pray for issuance of mandamus to determine the 1 question of law, as to whether the allegation of commission of offence under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 would construe a bailable offence with further directions to comply with Sections 154, 155 and 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to investigate a cognizable/non-cognizable offence, if any, under Section 135 of the Customs Act. In fact, when we perused the averments contained in the Writ Petition the provocation for the petitioner to file this writ petition was the so-called search conducted in the residential premises of the petitioner's ex-wife on 11.06.2013, who was residing at C-103, Gokul Divine, James Wadi, Irla, Ville Parle (West), Mumbai-400 056 and nothing incriminating was detected in the said search. It was further averred therein that the Officers threatened that the petitioner would be arrested, incarcerated in jail and would face dire consequence if he would not submit to their dictates. On that basis the writ petition came to be filed in this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. We, therefore, expressed that it was highly premature for the petitioner to seek for extraordinary constitutional remedy under Article 32 of the Constitution of India based on such flimsy averments contained in the writ petition, inasmuch as such averments cannot form the basis for a prima facie apprehension of arrest. We, therefore, also expressed that the writ petition does not merit any consideration to be dealt with on the various issues raised, inasmuch as it will be for the petitioner to work out his remedy as and when any appropriate positive action is taken against the petitioner. In the course of hearing, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner now seeks to withdraw the writ petition reserving petitioner's liberty to work out his remedy in future, if any such situation arises.
Learned Solicitor General of India on the other hand submitted that after rule was issued in this writ petition spate of writ petitions came to be filed citing the notice issued in 2 this writ petition and the interim order granted in this writ petition was also extended in all the subsequent writ petitions wherever the arrest did not take place. Learned Solicitor General further contended that by virtue of the pendency of the writ petition for more than a year in this Court the initiatives taken by the respondents-Authorities for the alleged violations under the provisions of the Customs Act/Central Excise Act by issuance of the summons could not be proceeded with and thereby the respondents-Authorities were put to serious prejudice. Learned Solicitor General further contended that by resorting to withdrawal of the writ petitions and by seeking to reserve their liberties, it should not give scope for the petitioners to again scuttle the actions that may be initiated by the respondents under the provisions of the Acts as well as the Code.
While appreciating the respective contentions of the parties and for the present moment as we find that the petitioners have expressed their desire to withdraw these writ petitions realizing the remote possibility of getting any relief in these writ petitions having regard to the premature stage at which this Court was approached by filing of these writ petitions, we are convinced that the petitioners can be permitted to withdraw these writ petitions with the right to work out their remedy as and when any appropriate situation arises for working out such remedy. We also make it clear that whatever impediment caused in pursuing the proceedings by the respondents pursuant to the issuance of the summons under Section 108 of the Customs Act or Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, during the period when the interim order was in operation can always be excluded for availing the statutory period available under the respective provisions of law.
With the above observations, all the writ petitions are dismissed as withdrawn, as prayed for by their respective counsel. There shall be no order as to costs.3
In the light of our above conclusion, we do not find any necessity to answer the question of law framed in our order dated 15.7.2013, which is left open to be decided in an appropriate case.
..................................J. [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA] ...................................J. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE] NEW DELHI;
NOVEMBER 20, 2014.4
ITEM NO.5 COURT NO.8 SECTION X
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Writ Petition(s)(Criminal) No(s). 109/2013
KIRIT SHRIMANKAR Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
U.O.I & ORS Respondent(s)
WITH
(With appln(s) for permission and stay and vacating interim order and office report) WITH W.P.(Crl.) No. 110/2013 (With appln.(s) for stay, vacating interim order and permission and Office Report) W.P.(Crl.) No. 112/2013 (With appln.(s) for stay and Office Report) W.P.(Crl.) No. 114/2013 (With appln.(s) for stay and Office Report) W.P.(Crl.) No. 175/2013 (With appln.(s) for stay, vacating interim order and Office Report) W.P.(Crl.) No. 198/2013 (With appln.(s) for stay and Office Report) T.P.(Crl.) No. 520/2013 (With appln.(s) for ex-parte stay and Office Report) T.P.(Crl.) No. 521/2013 (With appln.(s) for ex-parte stay and Office Report) W.P.(Crl.) No. 65/2014 (With appln.(s) for stay and Office Report) W.P.(Crl.) No. 78/2014 (With appln.(s) for stay and Office Report) W.P.(Crl.) No. 88/2014 (With appln.(s) for stay and Office Report) W.P.(Crl.) No. 90/2014 (With appln.(s) for stay and Office Report) W.P.(Crl.) No. 94/2014 5 (With appln.(s) for stay) W.P.(Crl.) No. 95/2014 (With appln.(s) for stay and Office Report) W.P.(Crl.) No. 96/2014 (With appln.(s) for stay and Office Report) W.P.(Crl.) No. 105/2014 (With appln.(s) for stay and Office Report) W.P.(Crl.) No. 124/2014 (With appln.(s) for stay and Office Report) W.P.(Crl.) No. 141/2014 (With appln.(s) for stay and Office Report) W.P.(Crl.) No. 144/2014 (With appln.(s) for stay and Office Report) W.P.(Crl.) No. 146/2014 (With appln.(s) for stay and Office Report) W.P.(Crl.) No. 151/2014 (With appln.(s) for interim stay and Office Report) W.P.(Crl.) No. 153/2014 (With appln.(s) for stay and Office Report) W.P.(Crl.) No. 163/2014 (With appln.(s) for stay and Office Report) W.P.(Crl.) No. 169/2014 (With appln.(s) for ex-parte stay and Office Report) W.P.(Crl.) No. 172/2014 (With appln.(s) for interim stay and Office Report) W.P.(Crl.) No. 174/2014 (With appln.(s) for stay and Office Report) W.P.(Crl.) No. 176/2014 (With appln.(s) for stay and Office Report) W.P.(Crl.) No. 187/2014 (With appln.(s) for stay and Office Report) W.P.(Crl.) No. 189/2014 (With appln.(s) for stay and Office Report) Date : 20/11/2014 These petitions were called on for hearing today.6
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE For Petitioner(s) Mr. Kapil Sibal,Sr.Adv. W.P.(Crl) 189/14 Dr. Rajeev Dhavan,Sr.Adv.
Mr. V.K. Bali,Sr.Av.
Mr. Saurabh Kirpal,Adv.
Ms. Manali Singhal,Adv.
Mr. Aditya Soni,Adv.
Ms. Christine Acy Kumar,Adv. Ms. Diksha Rai,Adv.
W.P.(Crl.)109/13 Mr. Shyam Divan,Sr.Adv.
Mr. Saurabh Kirpal,Adv.
Mr. Sanjay Agarwal,Adv.
Mr. Nikhil Jain,Adv.
W.P.(Crl.)144/14 Mr. V.K. Bali,Sr.Adv.
Mr. Aditya Soni,Adv.
Ms. Christine Acy Kumar,Adv. Mr. Gautam Awasthi,Adv.
W.P.(Crl.)90/14 Mr. Saurabh Kirpal.Adv.
Ms. Neeha Nagpal,Adv.
Mr. Manesh Agarwal,Adv.
Mr. E.C. Agrawala,Adv.
W.P.(Crl.)88 & Mr. Pankaj Bhatia,Adv.
141/14 Mr. Vivek Chaudhary,Adv.
Ms. Bharti Tyagi,Adv.
W.P.(CRL).112 & Mr. Saurabh Kirpal,Adv.
T.P.(CRL).521/13 Mr. Sanjay Agarwal,Adv.
Mr. Gautam Awasthi,Adv.
W.P.(CRL).110/13,
78, 94, 95 & 96/14 Mr. Sanjay Agarwal,Adv.
Mr. Nikhil Jain,Adv.
W.P.(CRL).151/14 Mr. Nikhil Jain,Adv.
Mr. Gautam Awasthi,Adv.
W.P.(CRL).114, 65/14 & TP(CRL).520/13 Dr. Rajeev Dhavan,Sr.Adv.
Mr. Saurabh Kirpal,Adv.
Mr. Sanjay Agarwal,Adv.
Mr. Nikhil Jain,Adv.
W.P.(Crl.)174/14 Ms. Meenakshi Arora,Sr.Adv.
7
Dr. Vinod K. Tewari,AOR
Mr. Pankaj Kumar Singh,Adv.
Mr. Satish Pandey,Adv.
W.P.(Crl.)124/14 Ms. Meenakshi Arora,Sr.Adv.
Ms. Poli Kataki,AOR
Mr. Sumit Kumar,Adv.
Mr. Ramakant Gaur,Adv.
W.P.(Crl.)146/2014 Ms. Meenakshi Arora,Sr.Adv.
Ms. Shikha Sapra,Adv.
Mr. Anil Kumar Tandale,AOR (N.P.) W.P.(Crl.)153, Ms. Shikha Sapra,Adv. 163, 169, 176, Mr. Tushar Joshi,Adv. 187/14, 118/13 Mr. Anil Kumar Tandale,AOR (N.P.) W.P.(Crl.)175/13 Mr. R.K. Handoo,Adv.
Mr. Yoginder Hondoo,AOR W.P.(Crl.)105/14 Mr. N. Ganpathy,AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Ranjit Kumar,SG Mr. V. Shekhar,Sr.Adv.
Ms. Ranjana Narayan,Adv.
Ms. Binu Tamta,Adv.
Mr. Pankaj Pandey,Adv.
Ms. Sonali Singh,Adv.
Mr. B. Krishna Prasad,AOR (N.P.) Mr. Shreekant N. Terdal,AOR (N.P.) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R W.P.(CRL) NO.105/2014 Delink and call on 10.12.2104. Reply be filed within one week. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within one week thereafter.
Learned Solicitor General of India submitted that he will get instructions in the matter.W.P.(CRL) NO.189/2014
Delink and call after two weeks. Reply be filed within two weeks.8
Call on 10.12.2014.
T.P.(Crl.) No. 520/2013 & T.P.(Crl.) No. 521/2013 In view of the order passed in W.P.(Crl) Nos.112/2013 and 114/2013, nothing survives in these transfer petitions and the same are dismissed as having become infructuous.
REST OF THE MATTERS Dismissed as withdrawn in terms of the signed order.
(NARENDRA PRASAD) (KALYANI GUPTA)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
(Signed order is placed on the file) 9