TANUJA ARORA Vs. LT GOVERNOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, wife of the detenu Ram Murti has challenged the order of detention No -F5/12/2000/HP-II dated 20/6/2000 passed by Lt. Governor of National Capital Territory of Delhi u/s.3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter the Act.).

(2.) The grounds of detention, inter alia, stated that on 9/4/2000 the detenu arrived at the J.G.I. Airport, New Delhi, from Dubai by Gulf Airlines flight GF 130. After immigration clearance he allegedly walked through the green channel and was stopped by the Customs Preventive Officer at the exit gate of the Arrival Hall and was asked whether he was carrying any dutiable goods. He replied in the negative. Two independent-witnesses were called and in their presence he was again asked whether he was carrying any dutiable goods' such as gold, silver, mobile phones, etc. This time again detenu replied in the negative. Thereupon, a notice u/s.102 of the Customs Act, 1962 was served asking him whether he would like to get his baggage searched in the presence of Magistrate or Gazetted Officer and he replied in writing that his baggage could be searched by any customs officer.On search of his bags following dutiable goods (126 mobile phones) were discovered:- S.No. Item No. Value(I.V.) ----- ----- ---- ----------- 1. Panasonic Mobile 1.02 10,20,000 Phones Model GO 90 with Batteries. 2. Nokia Mobile Phones 20 3,60,000 Model 821.0 with Batteries 3. Motorola Mobile Phones 4 72,000 NC-2-41E11 with Batteries ------- ----- -------- Total: 126 14,52000 ------- ----- -------- Market value of the goods was assessed to be Rs. 28,08,749.00 . Since the detenu was not able 10 produce any legal evidence for importation of the goods or proof of payment of customs duty, the recovered goods were seized u/s.110 of the Customs Act, 1962(hereafter the Customs Act) in the reasonable belief that the goods have been smuggled into India and were liable to be confiscated under the provisions of the said Act. Panchnama dated 9/4/2000 was prepared at the spot. Statement of the detenu was recorded u/s. 108 of the Customs Act, wherein he inter-alia admitted that he flew to Dubai from Delhi on 7/4/2000 on a ticket handed over to him at his residence by a person, who told him that. one bhola had sent the ticket whom he had met in Dubai, on his previous visit. The goods which were recovered were brought by Bhola, who had asked the detenu to take them to Delhi and hand over to a person outside the IGT Airport who was to recognise the detenu. He was promised to be paid Rs.20,000.00 for bringing those goods. He, however did not know the address of said Bhola in India. He also did not know the address of the contact man of Bho,1a in India, who had given him the tickets. After his,arrest residential premises of the detenu were searched but nothing incriminating was found.The scrutiny of the passport of the detenu revealed that he has made fourteen short trips abroad between 4/1/1999 to 9/4/2000 . He travelled to Singapore and Hongkong, eight times, and six times to UAE during this period. He was remanded to judicial custody uptill 24/4/2000 and the remand was extended from time to time his application for grant of bail was dismissed. Thereafter, he filed an appiication for grant of bail, before the High Court, which was listed for hearing on 4/7/2000. In the meantime complaint against him was also filed.

(3.) The Lt. Governor of the National Capital Territory of Delhi taping into consideration, aforesaid facts including his retraction and his application for bail pending in the High Court of Delhi, found that there was imminent possibility of the detenu being released on bail. Keeping in view his modus operand), to smuggle electronic items into India, he felt satisfied that detenu would continue to indulge in pro-judicial activities if released on bail. The Detaining Authority with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods in future passed the impugned order of detention. Copy of the detention order was not filed and the same was taken on record subsequently.