JOGA SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been brought under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking quashment of the detention order dated October 27, 1989, made under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'COFEPOSA Act') with a view to preventing the petitioner from smuggling goods or transporting or concealing or keeping with him smuggled goods and declaration dated December 22, 1989. issued under Section 9(1) of the COFEPOSA Act.

(2.) The facts, in brief, are that during the intervening night of March 11/12, 1989, the petitioner bad arrived at IGI Airport from Singapore and after collecting his checked in baggages which comprised of one black suitcase and one cardboard carton, be made declaration of the goods valued at Rs, 4,000.00 and paid Customs duly amounting to Rs. 5.337/50P and as he was proceeding for going out oi the Arrival Hall, he was intercepted at the exit gale by Customs Officer and on suspicion, he was detained for examination of his baggage and person and in presence of two independent witnesses, on minute examination of RC.R. and electric fan it was found that screws of the same stood tampered with and they were subjected to X-ray examinatiojn and which indicated concealment of some heavy density metal and thus, they were opened and two pieces of goldere found concealed in the transformer of R.C.R. and four pieces of gold found concealed in motor portion of the electric 'fan and they were found wrapped in black adhesive tapes and were found to be of 24 carat purity weighing 349.500 gms valued at Rs. l,05,549.00

(3.) In his voluntary statement recorded on the same day given in his own handwriting in Punjabi, the petitioner is stated to have admitted the recovery and seizure of the aforesaid gold and stated that the same was given to him by one Suresh at Singapore after the gold was concealed by him in the above-mentioned manner and he was to deliver the same to a person outside Delhi Airport who was to hand over Rs. 4,000.00 to him as remuneration. He also stated that be bad visited Singapore 14 times and on previous visits he used to buy electronic goods from M/s. Pahwa Electricali (Suresh being the Proprietor of the said firm) and be was agriculturist by profession and did not have any sufficient income to make his both ends meet and it is only on account of lure of money which led him to do this smuggling. He also stated that he bad not brought gold on his previous visits and he knew that import of gold into India is prohibited under the law. He was arrested and was remanded to judcial custody. He filed a bail application in which he mentioned that be was tortured and was forced to give that statement in bis own handwriting and be was innocent and be was granted bail on his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000.00 -with one surety on the condition that be was not to leave country without prior permission of the court and a complaint under the Customs Act for prosecuting him for commission of the criminal offence under the Customs Act bad been filed on May 11, 1989 and the cognizance of that complaint had already taken by the Magistrate. It was mentioned in the grounds of detention that during the period December 27, 1987 to March 11, 1989, the petitioner had visited foreign countries 14 times for short durations as was revealed from the passport of the petitioner which was taken into possession. The detaining authority reached the subjective satisfaction on perusing the aforesaid facts and circumstances tbai the petitioner has been knowingly engaging himself in the smuggling of goods and if not prevented, he is likely to engage himself in the smuggling of goods and also engage in transporting or concealing or keeping the smuggled goods and even though prosecution and adjudication proceedings had been initiated, the detaining authority felt satisfied and considered it necessary to detain the petitioner. It was also mentioned in the grounds of detention that ihe petitioner has been supplied with copies ot all the documents relied upon freely translated into Punjabi language, a language known to the petitioner and Punjabi translations of pages 5 to 28 mentioned in the list of documents were not being supplied.