NARENDRA BAHADUR LAMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This habeas corpus writ petition has been filed by Lundup Tamang, (hereinafter referred to as detenu) challenging the order of detention passed by Lt. Governor of the National Capital Territory of Delhi ( hereinafter referred to as the L.G.) in purported exercise of power under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 ( in short, the Act) with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods,and also preventing him from transporting and selling smuggled goods, in future. At the relevant point of time, the detenu was lodged in Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi.

(2.) Case of the detenu in a nutshell is as follows: Petitioner-detenu is a foreign national residing in Nepal. He had come to India in connection with his business. He was arrested by the DRI officials on the allegations on being in illicit possession of US$ 37500, equivalent Rs.16,08,750.00 in Indian currency found in the checked in package when he was going to Nepal from New Delhi on 2.5.2000. Though the petitioner took the stand that the money was not contraband as he had brought the same at the time of his arrival from Nepal in April, 2000 in connection with his business activities of woolen garments and was taking back the amount as the deal had not materialised, and he had declared it before the Customs Officials, he was apprehended and the amount was seized. Though a statement is purported to have been recorded confessing guilt same was allegedly obtained under duress. He was arrested and produced before ACJM on 3.5.2000. Petitioner was in judicial custody at the time when order of detention was passed by the L.G. and it was served on 5.8.2000. Petitioner made representations to the authorities on 21.8.2000. Those were rejected by both the L.G. and the Central Government on 29.8.2000 and 30.10.2000 respectively.Thereafter this habeas corpus petition has been filed.

(3.) Several points have been urged in support of the writ petition. Counter affidavit has been filed by the detaining authority. Though, as noted earlier, several grounds were pressed into service to contend that the order of detention was not proper, finally, challenge was restricted to one ground. It was submitted that the detaining authority had not applied his mind and he had not made the grounds of detention and had merely approved it. In paras 11 and 12 of the writ petition, following assertions have been made: