PALLICKAL KUNHAMU ABDUL LATHEEF Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition filed under - Article 226 of the' Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order of his detention passed on 2nd January 1989 in exercise of the power under section 3(1) and the declaration issued subsequently on 13th January 1989 under section 9 (1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short 'the Act') by Union of India through its duly empowered officers respondents No. 2 and 3 respectively and seeks an order of issuance of writ of habeasx corpus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction.

(2.) The fa.cls which impelled the detaining authority to take a decision to place the petitioner under preventive detention are that on arrival at Calcutta Airport by Bangladesh Biman flight from Dacca on 27th November 1988, the petitioner was found to have smuggled into India gold in the shape of 65 pieces of bars concealed in the cavities of one refrigerator; besides other goods which he had duly declared and paid custom duty. The gold was seized onhe reasonable belief that it had been brought into India without the authority of any valid importation and was thus liable to confiscation. The petitioner was simultaneously taken into custody and examined when he revealed in his statement under section 108 of the Customs Act that he was working in Sharjah since 1986 and had come to know there on Mohan Das who had been using him against payment to carry gold into India by various means and through different routes and that this time also, the refrigerator had been handed over to him by said Mohan Das and under his advice he had taken circuitous route to reach India via Dacca instead of flying straight from Sharjah. The petitioner was produced subsequently before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barasat and remanded to judicial custody and while he was still there, the impugned detention order was served on him on the view that inspite of the fact that adjudication proceedings were contemplated and and criminal prosecution was to ensue, it was found necessary in view of the past activities of the petitioner, as revealed by him in his statement, and also in view of the manner and quantity of smuggling detected under the present act, it was a fit case to place him under preventive detention. The petitioner was accordingly served with the order of detention passed on 2nd January 1989 while lodged in jail, on 5th January 1989. Representations made by him through a friend as well as personally failed and after consideration of the Advisory Board report, the order of detention was confirmed as also the declaration issued under section 9(1) of the Act which extends the period of detention from one year to two years.

(3.) In the writ petition filed through Mr. Harjinder Singh, Advocate, a number cf pleas have been taken up assailing the legality and validity of the detention order as also the continued detention of the petitioner and the learned counsel at the time of hearing took up all the pleas for consideration of the Court which were repelled by Mr. S.K. Dubey appearing for Mr. S.K.. Mishra, counsel for the respondents.