LAWS(DLH)-1991-1-2

SURJAN SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On January 29, 1991
SURJAN SINGH Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this writ petition u/Art. 226/227 read with S. 482 Cr. P.C., Surjan Singh has prayed that the order of detention dated 19.3.90 be quashed and he be set at liberty.

(2.) Facts, briefly stated are that on 29.12.89 the petitioner arrived at Indira Gandhi International Airport from New York by Lufthansa Airlines flight and after customs clearance he was going out at & intercepted at Exit Gate. The petitioner on inquiry informed the officials of the Customs Department that he was not carrying any contra-band like gold, wrist watches. He was however searched and 8 pieces of gold biscuits weighing 100 gms. each and 3 biscuits weighing 150 gms. each i.e. total weight 1250 gms. of 24 carats purity were recovered. These were seized by the Custom officer u/S. 110 of the Customs Act with the reasonable belief that the same were liable to confiscation having been imported into India in contravention of the prohibition/restrictions imposed upon the import of gold into India under the F.E.R.A. and Customs Act, 1962.

(3.) A number of grounds have been taken by the petitioner in this W. P. Learned counsel for the petitioner, has, however, restricted her arguments only to one ground-non-placing of material documents before the detaining, authority, thereby affecting subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority and thus, the right of the petitioner enshrined u/Art. 22 (5) of the Constitution of India has been violated. Elaborating this submission it has been submitted that after his release on bail, application dated 28 2.90 was moved by the petitioner before Additional C M M, New Delhi for permission to go abroad. This application was opposed by the Customs Department by way of filing a reply on 2 3.40. After hearing counsel for the parties, the application was allowed and the petitioner was permitted to go abroad for a period of six months on certain conditions mentioned in the order. These documents, according to the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner bad not been placed before the detaining authority and thus there was suppression of material documents thereby affecting the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. I may note that no counter has been filed by respondents 2 and 3 inspite of opportunities having been granted and in these circumstances there is no option but to hold that the averments made by the petitioner stand admitted and are not controverted. This conclusion is supported by rule-4 Chapter 1V-A of High Court Rules and Orders Volume-V.