PURAN SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was detained pursuant to an order dated 20-6-89 passed under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (for short, COFEPOSA Act) by Shri A.K. Batabyal, Joint Secretary to the Government of India. The detention order was passed with a view to preventing him from engaging in transporting and concealing smuggled goods. This followed an incident dated 31-5- 89 when at the pointing out of the petitioner 204 gold biscuits of 10. tolas each bearing foreign markings were recovered from a secret cavity specially designed above the window in the wall facing entrance of a bath room-cum-toilet on the first floor of house No. 504, Green Avenue, Amritsar.

(2.) The petitioner has challenged his detention by means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus for quashing the aforesaid order of detention and directing his release. The detention order is being challenged on number of grounds but it is not necessary for us to go into the merits or otherwise of all the grounds, as the petition, in my view, can be allowed on any of the following three points. These are:

(3.) The case of the respondents as. disclosed in the affidavit of the detaining authority on these aspects is that though the detention order was passed on 20-6-89 but the same could not be served upon the detenu after his release on bail by the orders of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar dated 15689. The detenu did not even attend the court of the District & Sessions Judge, Arnritsar in a petition for cancellation of his bail, though the warrants of his arrest were issued It was only when the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence came to know that the detenu has been arrested in the abovesaid case, the order and the grounds of detention were served on him on 2-4-89. For that reason, no action under Section 7 of the COFEPOSA Act was initiated against the detenu, as the application for cancellation of his bail was pending.