JAGPREET SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of theConstitution of India calls in question the order of detention dated 17/12/1992 passed against the petitioner by the Joint Secretary tothe Government of India, respondent No. 2 under Section 3(1) of theConservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling ActivitiesAct, 1974 (for short 'COFEPOSA').

(2.) The allegations against the petitioner are that he was intercepted atthe exit of the 101 Airport Terminal II, New Delhi on the night intervening19th and 20th November, 1992, on his arrival from Hongkong in an assumedname of Kanwal Mohan Singh Sehgal. On search of the person of thepetitioner, one wrapped packet was recovered from the inner waist pocketof his pant. This packet on opening was found to contain 35 gold biscuitsof 10 tolas each. The petitioner was not able to produce any document insupport of the legal possession and import of the aforesaid gold into India.Pursuant to the notice under Section 108 of the Customs Act, the petitioneradmitted to have smuggled the aforesaid gold into into India with a motiveto earn profits. On the same date viz 20/11/1992 the petitioner wasarrested and was produced before the Court of ACMM, New Delhi,who remanded him to judicial custody till Decembr 4, 1992. Before theACMM on the said day the petitioner retracted the confession earlier madeto the customs authorities. On 17/12/1992 the impugned order ofdetention was passed against the petitioner which was served on him onDecember 19, 1992.

(3.) The only ground urged before me by the learned Counsel for thepetitioner is that the Detaining Authority, while passing the impugned orderconsidered irrelevant material which vitiates the detention order. LearnedCounsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to ground (1) of thepetition where it is specifically pointed out that the Detaining Authorityrelied upon at least six documents which were wholly irrelevant to the question of detention of- the petitioner under the COFEPOSA. In reply toground (1) of the petition, the Detaining Authority in para 11 has stated asunder:-