RAKESH KUMAR MIGLANI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged, in this writ petition, his detention under the provisions of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). This detention order was passed on 14th November, 2003 under Section 3(1) of the Act and was executed on 15th December, 2003 when the petitioner was taken into custody.

(2.) A perusal of the aforesaid detention would reveal that the main allegations against the petitioner is that on 13th May, 2003 he was apprehended by the Special Cell, Delhi Police, Ashok Vihar, New Delhi along with one Zafar Umar Khan to whom he was found to be handing over Rs. 4 Lacs as Hawala money. It was stated to have been received from Pakistan through Hawala. While seizing this amount one Pistol, 9 live cartridges and two pocket diaries containing the entries of Hawala transactions in coded language were also seized. From the said Zafar Umar Khan, one currency note of hundred rupees and two mobile phones as well as Indian currency of Rs. 16,110/ - was also recovered from his scooter.

(3.) ON the basis of this material and after considering the representation dated 20th October, 2003 of the petitioner addressed to the Joint Secretary, Government of India and finding the same to be devoid of any merit, the competent authority held the view that the petitioner had been engaging himself in activities which had adversely affected the foreign exchange resources of the country. Considering the nature and gravity of the offence, petitioner's role therein, the well laid out manner in which he had been indulging in such a prejudicial activities and his dubious conduct, all of which reflected petitioner's high potentiality and propensity to engage himself in such prejudicial activities in future, the detaining authority was satisfied that unless detained, the petitioner was likely to continue to engage in the aforesaid prejudicial activities in future as well and therefore, it was necessary to detain him under the Act with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the conservation of foreign exchange in future. The detaining authority was also satisfied about the nexus between the proximity of the date of incident, i.e. 13th May, 2003 and the date of issue of detention order. Thus, on these grounds, detention order was passed against the petitioner. He was further given an opportunity to make his representation against the detention order to the detaining authority, the Government as well as the Advisory Board.