ISHAQ YAQOOB SAYAEDNA Vs. MAHENDRA PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.PC has been filed seeking a writ of habeas corpus and praying that the order of detention passed on 17.1.1991 by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the quashed.

(2.) The brief facts relevant for the decision be as follows : The petitioner arrived from Bangkok by Air India Flight no. 301 at the Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi on 9.12.1990. The Customs Officers of Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi on arrival of the flight rummaged the aircraft and recovered five torn pieces of cash purchase voucher for purchase of 48 pieces of gold of 10 tolas each at Hongkong. The torn pieces of That Airways Boarding Card issued in favour of the petitioner on Thai Airways was also recovered from the garbage of the toilet of the said aircraft. After scrutinising the torn pieces of the purchase vouchers, boarding card and passenger manifest, the petitioner was noticed occupying Seat No. 43K enroute to Bombay. The petitioner was apprehended. On checking the person and baggage of the petitioner the Customs Authorities did not recover any contraband goods, however when the seat occupied by the petitioner was searched, 24 biscuits of 10 tolas each foreign marked metal wrapped with adhesive tapes and thread from inside the hollow pipe under the seat were recovered. The petitioner was interrogated and his statement was recorded immediately. Another passenger who had travelled on the same air-craft who had occupied seat No. 42K was also apprehended and an empty seat bearing no. 46K was also searched and 24 biscuits of yellow metal wrapped in a similar manner were also recovered from the hollow pipe under the said seat. The petitioner was immediately arrested and produced before a magistrate within 24 hours as required under the law and was remanded to judicial custody on the same date. The petitioner moved an application for bail on 17 12.1990 to which a reply was filed by the respondent. The petitioner however continued to be in judicial custody till the order of detention was passed by the respondent on 17.1.1991.

(3.) The petitioner has inter alia challenged this order of detention on the ground that relevant material which should have been supplied to him and which had influenced the mind of the detaining authority while passing the detention order was not supplied.