SATISH VERMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of theConstitution of India read with Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedureby the petitioner seeks issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus or any otherappropriate order or direction for quashing the order of detentiondated 20-8-91 passed under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of ForeignExchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (COFEPOSA Act forshort) by second respondent Shri Mahender Prasad, Joint Secretary to theGovt. of India, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi and a declaration passedunder Section 9(1) of the Act dated 9-9-91 passed by third respondent.

(2.) The brief facts are that the petitioner had arrived by ThaiAirways flight TG-313 on 3-8-91 at the Calcutta Airport. He opted toout of the gate through green channel. While he was near the exit gate withone hand bag, he was verbally enquired if he had any gold with him. Hedenied the same. However, on suspicion having arisen, be was taken to aseparate counter and on interrogation finally confessed that he had beencarrying four small pieces of gold inside the stomach which were later onejected voluntarily. His statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act wasalso recorded. Besides being prosecuted under the Customs Act the presentdetention order was also passed against him. It was served on him on20-8-91 while he was still in jail in connection with a criminal case againsthim.

(3.) In the petition a number of grounds have been taken up tochallenge the validity of detention order. But during the course of arguments,learned Counsel for the petitioner has restricted his arguments to ground (P)at page 13 of the petition. It is stated herein that his representationdated 29-11-91 addressed to the Hon'ble Advisory Board had not beenconsidered by the Central Govt. and thus detention had become illegal andbad in law being violative of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. Inthe counter affidavit it is stated that the representation dated 21-11-91 of thedetenu had been considered by the Central Govt. and the detenu had beeninformed about its rejection vide Memo dated 20-12-1991.