DALJIT SINGH SANDHU Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the detention orderpassed 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 interceptedon 19-5-1992 at I.G.I. Airport, New Delhi when he was leaving for Dubaiand as a result of search of his baggage, foreign currency equivalent toRs. 9,19,058.25 was recovered. On 20-5-1992 the residence of the petitionerwas also searched, but nothing incriminating was recovered. On 6-6-1992 acomplaint under Sections 132 and 135 (1)(a) of the Customs Act was filedagainst the petitioner and the petitioner was granted bail by the AdditionalSessions Judge, New Delhi on 7-7-1992. Departmental proceedings werestarted against the petitioner and a show cause notice was issued on26-8-1992 and on 8-10-1992 this detention order was passed and in pursuanceof 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 andon 12-11-1992 he made a representation to respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

(3.) The petitioner has challenged the said detention order on variousgrounds, but stress has been laid on the point that though the date of incidentwas 19-5-1992, but no detention order was passed till 8-10-1992. This longand undue delay in passing the detention order has snapped the nexus between the activity alleged and the activity sought to be curbed by passing theimpugned 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 thedetention order shows that the detention was unnecessary and the delay hasvitiated the same. It is submitted that there was non application of mind onthe part of the Detaining Authority. Learned Counsel further submitted thateven thereafter the order of detention was not served upon the petitioner till6-11-1992. Reliance has been placed on a decision of the Division Bench ofthis Court in the case of Amit Sadruddin Khan v. Administrator, UnionTerritory of Delhi & Ors. Criminal Writ Petition No. 136 of 1991-decidedon 25-9-1991 in support of the contention that in such circumstances whenthe detention order has been passed after a long delay and the service wasalso effected after delay the detention order is liable to be quashed.