S K JANGIR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India read with S.482, Cr. P.C. Shri S. K. Jangir (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) has challenged the order of detention dated 3-12-90 passed u/S. 3(1) of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as COFEPOSA) by the Joint Secretary to the Govt. of India.

(2.) In brief, the allegations against the petitioner are that on 7/10/1990, the petitioner arrived at IGI Airport, New Delhi from Dubai. He made a wrong declaration about the goods which he had brought along with him. He was intercepted at the exit gate and as a result of the search of his baggage, it was revealed that he has kept concealed? seven gold biscuits of foreign marking of ten tolas each weighing 816.20 grams valued at Rs. 2,77,508 (M.V.). On checking of his passport. it also came to light that he had been to Dubai three times earlier from 1984 to 1990. On these allegations he was arrested and booked for an offence u/Ss. 132 and 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 on 7/10/1990, itself for an offence of smuggling gold of foreign origin into India in contravention of the provisions of Customs Act 1962. The impugned detention order was passed on 31-12-1990 and it was served on the petitioner on 17-12-1990.

(3.) Though the petitioner has challenged the detention order on various grounds, but at the time of arguments, only ground No. X was pressed, which mentions that the petitioner/detenu sent a representation dated 29-1-91 to respondent No. 1 i.e., Union of India through the Supdt. Jail, whereby he besides demanding certain documents made a prayer for revocation of the detention order. However, till the filing of this writ petition, the petitioner has not received any reply from the respondent. It is urged that it is enjoined on the respondents to show to the court that the representation of the detenu was continuously considered till its final decision and communication thereof to the detenu and on their failure to do so, the respondents rendered the impugned detention order illegal and void.