BIPIN KUMAR JAIN Vs. LT GOVERNOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Bipin Kumar Jain assails the order of detention passed under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, as amended (for short "the Act").

(2.) The relevant facts are that the petitioner is a holder of Indian passport. On 20.11.2000, he arrived at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi from Hongkong by Air India flight No.AI-321. He collected the baggages and walked through the green channel. On suspicion at the exit gate of Arrival Hall, he was Intercepted by the Customs officer and was Inquired If he was carrying any gold or any other dutiable article. The answer given by the petitioner is stated to be In negative. Not satisfied with the reply, the officer called two independent witnesses and in their presence, search was to be conducted. The petitioner did not require the presence of a magistrate or a gazetted officer. He was taken to the Preventive Room in the Arrival Hall. The search of the bag led to the recovery of five mobile phones of Motorola. Thereafter personal search of the petitioner was conducted.. The petitioner was asked to take off the shoes and socks and 16 pieces of gold bars were recovered. The value of the goods was assessed. The petitioner made a voluntary statement admitting the recovery and seizure of gold and mobile phones. He was arrested on 21.11.2000 under Section 104 of the Customs Act, 1962 and was produced before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi. Thereafter it is asserted that the Lieutenant Governor, "National Capital Territory of Delhi, took into consideration the retraction made by the petitioner and other facts and on being satisfied, had passed the Impugned order.

(3.) The petitioner aasails the said order alleging that his detention has been effected for twin purposes, namely, smuggling of goods and engaging in transporting, concealing and keeping smuggled goods. According to the petitioner, the activities of transporting, concealing and keeping smuggled goods could only be attributed to Raja's man who was outside the airport because as per his statement the petitioner was to hand over the same to him. It has been asserted further that the detaining authority had not applied his mind and there has been inordinate delay in passing the detention order while further the detention order was passed while the petitioner was in Judicial custody. On all these counts, it is claimed that the detention order necessarily is illegal and, therefore, is to be quashed.