RAJESH R KHUSHLANI RAMESH KHUSHLANI Vs. MAHENDRAPRASAD JT SECRETARY MINISTRY OF FINANCE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA :MAHENDRAPRASAD JT SECRETARY MINISTRY OF FINANCE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted and rule nisi.

(2.) The above appeal is preferred by the detenu's son Rajesh R. Khushlani challenging the judgment and order dated 20/04/1992 passed by the High court of Bombay dismissing the Criminal Writ Petition No. 1412 of 1991 filed by him questioning the legality of the detention order, passed against his father, namely, Ramesh Khushlani by the first respondent, namely, the Joint secretary to the government of India n exercise of the powers conferred under Section 3 (1 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') with a view to preventing the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the conservation of foreign exchange and directing him to be detained and kept in custody in the central prison, Bombay.

(3.) A few facts relevant to decide this appeal may be stated: The Enforcement Directorate, Bombay received certain information that M/s Tushar Enterprises, M/s Aum Enterprises and M/s Shah Enterprises all situated at Bombay had remitted abroad foreign exchange worth about Rs. 5 crores on the strength of faked/bogus import documents through Union Bank of India. The proprietor of the said firms was one Shri Tushar M. Shah residing at Bombay. On the basis of the aforesaid information, enquiries were made with the Union Bank of India, Bombay and thereafter the residential and business premises of Tushar M. Shah were searched under Section 37 of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (for short FERA) on 21/02/1991 which resulted in the seizure of certain documents. The statements of Tushar M. Shah were recorded under Section 40 of the FERA on February 23 and 26, 1991, the details of which are incorporated in the grounds of detention. While explaining the modus operandi of remittance of the foreign exchange, Tushar Shah inter alia stated that as regards remittance sent in the name of Shah Enterprises one Mr Ram, resident of Hong Kong used to prepare the documents and the said Ram is a friend of the detenu; that the detenu used to collect Indian currency and fake import documents at the instance of the said Ram and give him for depositing in the bank for the purposes of effecting remittances abroad; that he had received approximately a sum of Rs. 1.30 crores from the detenu; that the said Ram and the detenu used to receive 5 per cent each as their share; that Ram's job. was to prepare the documents and send the same from Hong Kong; that the detenu used to bring the documents and money to him and that the job of Tushar Shah was to send money through bank. In the course of the statements, Tushar Shah has implicated some morepersons including himself, namely, Kirit L. Shah and Pankaj Valia. On the basis of the information given by Tushar Shah separate statements were recorded from Kirit L. Shah on 25/02/1991, from the detenu and one Pankaj T. Valia on 26/02/1991. In addition, some more statements were also recorded from various other persons inclusive of the officials of the Union Bank of India. As a follow-up, the residential premises of Pankaj Valia and one Ramesh as well as some business premises were searched by the officials of the Enforcement Directorate. The detenu herein, Tushar Shah, Kirit L. Shah and Pankaj Valia gave their statements involving themselves in the illegal remittances of the foreign exchange. The first respondent, namely, the detaining authority on drawing the requisite subjective satisfaction on the materials placed before him passed separate orders of detention against all the above said four persons under the provisions of COFEPOSA. Now we are concerned only with the case of the detenu (Ramesh Khushlani) herein whose writ petition filed through his son has been dismissed by the High court as aforementioned.