RAJ KUMAR MAHAJAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner. Raj Kumar Mahajan has challenged the order of detention passed on 7th November, 1990 under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 hereinafter called as the 'COFEPOSA ACT') served on him on 5th September, 1991. The order of detention was issued by Mr. Mahendra Prashad, joint Secretary, to the Govt. of India. It is stated therein that with a view to preventing the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the augmentation of foreign exchange. It was also ordered that the petitioner be detained and kept in custody in the Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi. The grounds of detention were served on the petitioner but on September 9, 1991.

(2.) In nutshell, the case is that on 17th August, 1990, the information was received by the Delhi Zonal Office of the Enforcement Directorate that the petitioner Raj Kumar, resident of A.2\219,Paschim Vihar and having business premises at shop No.21, Nehru Bazar, is indulging in unauthorised purchase and sale of foreign exchange, gold and imported goods on a large scale. He also has hide outs at D-42 and D-44. West Patel Nagar, New Delhi. On search being conducted, at his residence documents were recovered. Similarly documents and the Indian currency worth Rs.13,000.00 were recovered from his business premises. From premises at D-42 and D-44, West Patel Nagar, foreign currency i.e. US $152, Sing, $-12, Indian Rs.10,000.00 and documents were recovered. From his business premises at 21, Nehru Bazar. Pahar Ganj, personal search of the petitioner was conducted and a sum of Rs. 550.00 and documents were recovered. As a follow up, his room No. 21 of Hotel "Vishal, Main Bazar Panar Ganj, New Delhi was also searched and USS 850 and documents were recovered. It is further the case of the respondent that the petitioner made voluntary statement admitting the search and also the seizure of Indian currency and documents from his possession and also that he was making payments to the foreigners in foreign exchange for purchase of imported goods and gold. He further disclosed as to from where he was purchasing foreign exchange and that in the last four years he had purchased and sold foreign exchange worth Rs. 12 crores. It is on account of the recoveries effected from his residence and business premises coupled with the voluntary statement made by the petitioner that the detaining authority came to the conclusion that he was indulging in unauthorised purchase and sale of foreign exchange which was in violation of the Provision of F.E.R.A. 1973. He was also appraised of his right to make representation before the Central Government, detaining authority and Advisory Board, if he so wishes against his detention.

(3.) The challenge to the detention order has been made in the instant writ petition primarily on two grounds namely:-