BAIJIT SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts giving rise to this petition in brief arethat on 15.8.91 the petitioner, Baljit Singh was intercepted on suspicion by A.I.U. Officers on his arrival from Delhi by flight No. AI-144 as a domesticpassenger at Sahar Airport, Bombay. A search of his baggage, i.e. one handbag, in the presence of Panchas resulted in the recovery of foreign currencyand Indian currency which were cleverly concealed in sweetmeat boxes. Thesaid foreign currency and Indian currency equivalent to Indian Rs. 2,32,676.00 were seized under Panchnama in the reasonable belief that the same wereattempted to be smuggled out of India and hence liable for confiscation underthe provisions of Customs Act, 1962. In his statement dated 15.8.91 headmitted possession carriage and recovery of foreign currency and Indiancurrency from the two sweetmeat boxes carried by him in his hand bag andthat the same were given to him by one Joginder Singh at Delhi for carryingto Singapore and to deliver to him (Joginder) there; that he had undertakenthis job for monetary consideration of Rs 5,000.00 including to and froairticket and other local expenses at Singapore. The export of foreigncuarency and Indian currency unless covered by a valid permit issued byReserve Bank of India is prohibited in terms of Section 13(1) of ForeignExchange Regulation Act, 1973 read with Section 11 of the Customs Act. Onthe basis of this statement made by him and the recovery of foreign andIndian currencies he was detained. The foreign and Indian currencies wereseized. His statement was recorded which he retracted on 17.8.91 when produced before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bombay Adjudication orderwas passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, Bombay on 16.8.91,which was despatched on 11.10.91 imposing a penalty of Rs.30,000.00 andconfiscating the seized currency. The penalty amount stands deposited.

(2.) On 24.4.92 an order of detention under Section 3(1) of COFEPOSA was passed against the petitioner on the basis of the said incident. Withoutwaiting for the order of detention and the grounds of detention being servedupon him, the petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging the orderof detention dated 24.4.92.

(3.) Relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in The AdditionalSecretary to the Government of India and Ors. v. Smt. Alka Subhash Gadiaand Anr., (JT 1991(1) SC 549) learned Counsel for the petitioner argued thatthe impugned order of detention has been passed on vague, extraneous andirrelevant grounds and that it has been passed for a wrong purpose, and inany case, the impugned order has lost its purpose inasmuch as the incidenttook place on 15.8.91 and the order of detention was passed on 24.4.92 andthat the same has not yet been executed. According to the learned Counselthe object of preventive detention being to forthwith put a stop to prejudicialactivity of a person, no useful purpose would be served in putting the petitioner under detention after more than ten months of the date of incidentcoupled with the fact that the petitioner has not been observed to have undertaken any such or similar prejudicial activity.