BHARAT ALIAS BHARAT SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner through the present petition wants to challenge an order of detention made agaisnt him by the Union of India vide Notification No. 673/394/91-Cus. VIII dated September 25, 1991 passed by Shri Mahendra Prasad, Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance. Department of Revenue,under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange & Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the COFEPOSA').

(2.) Brief facts which gave rise to the present petition are as under: that on the basis of an intelligence a Tata Mobile Van bearing registration No. MP 09 D 8093 was intercepted at Shahjahanpur Police Post by the officers of the Revenue Intelligence on August 30,1991 at 22.45 hours alongwith its two occupants known as Rajinder Kumar i.e. the driver of the van, and the petitioner. The aforesaid van was thoroughly rummaged which resulted in the discovery of five secret cavities specially built, two each beeath the seats in the rear portion of the van, and one cavity in the floor of the van. On further search of the cavities 23 bags containing 581 slabs of silver weighing 702.780 kgs. valued at Rs. 47.08.626.00 . Since neither the said Rajinder Kumar nor the petitioner could produce any licit document to show the legal import of the 581 slabs of silver the same was seized under the Customs Act. 1962 alongwith the abovesaid mobile van. Shri Rajinder Kumar as well as the petitioner both made their statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act wherethrough they admitted the recovery of the said silver from the said van. The petitioner in his statement stated that he was simply an employee of Kanchan Aggarwal, a co-accused, on a monthly salary of Rs. 1200.00 and it is Shri Kanchan Aggarwal who is engaged in the smuggling of gold and he was simply transporting the said silver to Kapur Guest House, Delhi. Shri Rajender Kumar and the petitioner were arrested on the aforesaid date and they were produced before a Metropolitan Magistrate on August 31, 1991 who remanded both of them to the judicial custody. Subsequently an order for detention under Section 3 (1) of the COFEPOSA with regard to the petitioner was passed with a view to preventing the petitioner from engaging in transporting smuggled goods on September 25.1991 vide F.No. 673/394/91.-Cus. VIII, which is the subject-matter of the challenge through the present petition.

(3.) The respondent neither filed a counter-affidavit to rebut the averments raised for and on behalf of the petitionr in his petition nor this Court could hear anyone for and on behalf of the respondent. Thus, the respondent for the best reasons known to them allowed the present matter to go by default. However, one Mr. B.S. Nagra, Advocate for Mr. V.K. Shali, Advocate was present throughout the arguments advanced for and on behalf of the petitioner.