DINESH BHARDWAJ Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The detention order was passed against the petitioner, Dinesh Bhardwaj dated 19/02/1992 under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter called as the "COFEPOSA ACT"). The impugned order was passed with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods in future. Along with the order of detention, the grounds of detention were also supplied to the petitioner.

(2.) In brief the facts of the case are that on the basis of a specific information received on 14/11/1991, the petitioner was intercepted by the Custom Officers in the Custom Departure Hall of Indira Gandhi International Air port Terminal II, while the petitioner was leaving by Air France Flight. The petitioner had already checked baggage consisting of one maroon coloured play boy suitcase. This baggage was examined in the presence of two independent witnesses and was found to contain 110,000 US$ and pound 60,670. Besides this other used clothes and food stuff etc. were also found. On personal search a recovery of 50 US$ and 40 Hong Kong Dollars was made. Besides this visiting cards were also recovered. The petitioner failed to produce any documentary or other evidence for the lawful export of the said recovered foreign currency equivalent to Indian Rs. 54,97,685/-. The said foreign currency was seized under Section 108 of the Customs Act on the belief that the same was attempted to be smuggled out of India in violation of the restrictions imposed on the export thereof.

(3.) The statement of the petitioner under Section 108 of the Customs Act was recorded on 14/11/1991 wherein he admitted the aforesaid recovery from his possession. The petitioner stated in his statement that one Rakesh Kumar Sharma of Mahalaxmi Guest House often used to send foreign currency out of India through carriers. It is he who paid the money besides return ticket and money for expenses for staying abroad. The petitioner was lured by free ticket and money to cary the foreign currency at the instance of Rakesh Sharma. It was in this background that the respondent came to the conclusion that the petitioner knowingly engaged himself in smuggling goods out of India.