DALJIT SINGH SANDHU Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged the detention order passed against him under Section 3(1) read with Section 2(f) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (in short COFEPOSA) on 8.10.1992 by filing this criminal writ petition.

(2.) AS per the facts available on record, the petitioner was intercepted on 19.5.1992 at I.G.I. Airport, New Delhi when he was leaving for Dubai and as a result of search of his baggage, foreign currency equivalent to Rs. 9,19,058.25 was recovered. On 20.5.1992 the residence of the petitioner was also searched, but nothing incriminating was recovered. On 6.6.1992 a complaint under Sections 132 and 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act was filed against the petitioner and the petitioner was granted bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi on 7.7.1992. Departmental proceedings were started against the petitioner and a show -cause notice was issued on 26.8.1992 and on 8.10.1992 this detention order was passed and in pursuance of that detention order the petitioner was arrested on 4.11.1992. The detention order was served on the petitioner on 6.11.1992 when he was in jail and on 12.11.1992 he made a representation to respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

(3.) THE petitioner has challenged the said detention order on various grounds, but stress has been laid on the point that though the date of incident was 19.5.1992, but no detention order was passed till 8.10.1992. This long and undue delay in passing the detention order has snapped the nexus between the activity alleged and the activity sought to be curbed by passing the impugned detention order and on this ground it has been alleged that the said detention order is illegal and void and the detaining authority had not applied its mind to the facts of the case before passing the said detention order. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the delay in passing the detention order shows that the detention was unnecessary and the delay has vitiated the same. It is submitted that there was non -application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. Learned counsel further submitted that even thereafter the order of detention was not served upon the petitioner till 6.11.1992. Reliance has been placed on a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the cases of Amit Sadruddin Khan v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi and Ors. Criminal Writ Petition No. 136 of 1991 decided on 25.9.1991 in support of the contention that in such circumstances when the detention order has been passed after a long delay and the service was also effected after delay the detention order is liable to be quashed.