QAYAMUDDIN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Qayamuddin has filed this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, thereby praying that the order dated 22nd January, 1991, detaining him may be set aside and he be ordered to be released forthwith.

(2.) On 22nd January, 1991, Shri Mohinder Prasad, Joint Secretary to the Govt. of India, especially empowered officer, exercising powers under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) ordered for the detention of the petitioner with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods. This order of detention was served upon the petitioner on 12th February, 1991 and the grounds of detention alongwith the documents relied upon in support of the detention order were also served upon the petitioner.

(3.) Briefly stated the facts leading to the filing of this petition are that on 14th September, 1990 the petitioner was intercepted in the Departure Hall of I.G.I. Airport, New Delhi, when he was going to Dubai by Emirates Flight No. EK.-703. The petitioner was going for security checks after completion of other formalities including those of the customs when an enquiry was made from him as to whether he was carrying any contraband like foreign currency. The reply of the petitioner was in the negative. Two independent witnesses were called and in their presence also when asked as to whether the petitioner was carrying any foreign currency, his reply was in the negative. He was., however, searched when 55 notes of 100 US $, one note of 1000 Swiss Franks, 500 Qatar Riyal, 2,000 UAE Dihram and 1,000 Indian rupees, total value of Rs. l,20,050.00 were recovered. The petitioner was not in a position to give any evidence, documentary or otherwise for his lawful) possession and so the currency was seized in terms of Section 110 of the Customs Act on the reason.ible belief that the same was liable for confiscation. Statement of the petitioner was recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, in which he admitted about the recovery of the aforesaid currency and not giving any valid explanation about his lawful possession.