KULDIP SINGH Vs. ADMINISTRATOR DELHI ADMNS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Kuldeep Singh, the petitioner, has been detained by virtue of an order passed by the Administrator, Delhi, under Section 30 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, hereinafter referred to as the Act. He has moved us by a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for the issue of a writ of Habeas Corpus or in the nature of Habeas Corpus contending that his detention is in violation of his fundamental rights, as an Indian Citizen, guaranteed by Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution.

(2.) . It seems that officers / officials of the Land Custom Department had some information and were watching the activities of some persons alleged to be involved in smuggling and in dealing with foreign watches and foreign straps. It is alleged that on January 21, 1979 the petitioner and one Noor Ali were apprehended near Taj Mahal Hotel, Fatebpuri, Delhi when these two persons brought some contraband watches and straps in four packages. The two persons were produced in the Railway Police Station. The packages were opened and were said to contain imported watches and straps alleged to have been smuggled into India. The watches and straps were seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the matter was further investigated. The petitioner was an alleged suspect for having committed a crime envisaged by Section 135(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. He was, therefore, arrested along with Noor Ali. The petitioner was granted bail on February 2, 1979. On February 3, 1979 he allegedly sent a telegram retracting the statements said to have been given by him during investigation conducted by officials of Land Custom Department. Prosecution was launched against the petitioner and others on March 24) 1979 when complaint was filed alleging that the petitioner had committed an offence under Section 135(b) of the Customs Act. It appears that the petitioner could not be served for appearance in Court for sometime. We need not go into the question as to whether the petitioner was evading appearance purposely or not. Suffice it to say that the petitioner did put in appearance in Court on May 17, 1979. The impugned order of detention was passed on June 14, 1979 by the Administrator of the Union Territory of Delhi but the formal order was issued on June 19, 1979. This order could not be served for one reason or the other on the petitioner. In the meanwhile in the criminal prosecution petitioner's bail was cancelled on July 10. 1979 and he was sent to Jail While in jail the detention order was served on him on October 23, 1979. The grounds of detention required to be served on the petitioner by Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Act and as postulated by Clause 5 of Article 22 of the Constitution were also given to the petitioner on October 23, 1979. He made an application on October 24, 1979 for supply of copies of documents. This application was despatched from the jail to Delhi Administration on October 29, 1979. The documents. were supplied to the petitioner on November 6, 1979. He made a representation against the detention order on November 19,1979. The meeting of the Advisory Board which was scheduled for November 28, 1979 was preponed to November 21, 1979. The Advisory Board looked into the matter and made its recommendations. The representation of the petitioner was rejected by the Administrator on December 4, 1979. The detention was confirmed after receipt of the report of the Advisory Board on December 17, 1979.

(3.) . The petitioner contends that his detention is liable to be quashed for, inter-alia, the following reasons :