Read Time: 06 minutes
Per Tekwani, the DRI conducted searches on August 23, 2024 at five locations and seized items alleged to be e-cigarettes. Among these, only one location, specifically a basement, was linked to Tekwani. However, Tekwani contended that the DRI failed to establish that Tekwani either owned or imported the seized goods.
The Delhi High Court, recently, issued a notice in a petition filed by Yash Tekwani, the proprietor of Prince Paan, seeking to quash an FIR for the smuggling of E-Cigarettes by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI). The bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma listed the matter for January 21, 2025.
Tekwani asserted that he was unlawfully arrested on August 24, 2024, and his statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act was allegedly obtained under coercion, thereby violating his rights under Article 20(3) of the Constitution.
Subsequently, Tekwani applied for bail, which was granted on October 5, 2024, by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala House Court. Despite jurisdictional objections raised during the bail proceedings, the DRI continued its investigation, causing undue prejudice to Tekwani.
Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa, representing Tekwani, contended that the DRI had conducted unauthorized searches and seizures. Tekwani argued that the DRI exceeded its jurisdiction, as the E-Cigarettes Act, being a special law, superseded the Customs Act, 1962, in matters concerning prohibited electronic cigarettes.
Senior Advocate Pahwa asserted that the enforcement of the E-Cigarettes Act could only be carried out by "Authorized Officers" as defined under Section 3(b) of the Act, and that DRI officials did not qualify as such. Section 14 of the E-Cigarettes Act explicitly provided that its provisions would prevail over any conflicting laws, including the Customs Act.
Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa further argued that the E-Cigarettes Act exclusively governed offenses related to electronic cigarettes, rendering the application of the Customs Act both redundant and contradictory. He emphasized that the "market price" concept under the Customs Act was irrelevant to prohibited goods like e-cigarettes, highlighting the overriding authority of the E-Cigarettes Act.
Tekwani also contended that his fundamental rights had been violated due to his arrest without jurisdiction and the DRI’s failure to inform him of the grounds for his arrest. Senior Advocate Pahwa argued that the essential elements of Section 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act were absent, as no allegations of "misdeclaration" or "fraudulent evasion" were made. Additionally, the conditions specified under Sections 111 and 113 of the Customs Act, necessary for invoking Section 135(1)(b), were also not satisfied.
The DRI allegedly invoked Section 135 of the Customs Act to circumvent the E-Cigarettes Act, 2019, which prescribed milder penalties irrespective of the quantity or value of the goods. Under Section 135, Tekwani faced a non-bailable offense with a maximum penalty of seven years, whereas the E-Cigarettes Act imposed a maximum penalty of one year.
Furthermore, it was argued that the search and seizure proceedings failed to adhere to Section 103 of the BNSS, 2023 (formerly Section 100 of the Cr.P.C.). This procedural non-compliance, combined with the lack of jurisdiction and misuse of statutory discretion, rendered the Respondent’s actions legally unsustainable.
For Petitioner: Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa with Advocates Prabhav Ralli, Yuvraj Bansal, Annada Dubey and Devrat AryaCase Title: Yash Tekwani v Directorate Of Revenue (W.P.(CRL) 3808/2024)
Please Login or Register
