TORIYLI ALIAS JABBAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Toriyli @ Jabbar, the petitioner herein was detained in persuance to an order passed on 6th November, 1991 under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter called as the 'COFEPOSA ACT') by one Shri Sikander Khan, Joint Secretary to the Government of India. The detention order was passed with a view to preventing the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the augmentation of foreign exchange in future. Along with the detention order, the grounds of detention were also supplied to the petitioner.

(2.) The facts which led to the passing of the detention order dated 6th November, 1991 are that on 3rd October, 1991, the residential premises bearing No. 5320, Gali Yakub Wali, Kiichha Rehman, Chandni Chowk, Delhi was searched by the officers of the Enforcement Directorate and inhe said premises six persons were found present. On search being condicted, some foreign exchange and documents were seized. Statement of 8 person" were recorded under Section 40 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. Statement of the petitioner under Section 40 was also recorded which was signed by him. Pursuance to that search, the petitioner along with two Afghan nationals and Shri Vipin Rajput, Shri Vipin Kumar and Shri Ashok Kumar were arrested. They were produced before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi and were remanded to judicial custody on 4th October, 1991.

(3.) The petitioner was still confined in the judicial custody when the present detention order under Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA ACT was passed and served on him on 16th November, 1991. In the grounds of detention, the petitioner was also made aware that if he so wished, he could make a representation against his detention to the Central Government Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Delhi) as well as to the Advisory Boad. He was also made aware that he could be heard by the Advisory Board in due course if the board considers it essential to do so. He was also supplied the documents relied upon by the respondent. The petitioner was also made aware through a communication served on him in Jail on 18th November, 1991 that a reference has been made to the Advisory Board for opinion under Sub Section (c) of Section 8.