CHHIBA VALLABHABHAI TANDEL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, Hira Bhai Chhiba Tandel has by this petition challenged an order of detention dated 28th June, 1984 made by Mr. K. S. Dilipsingji, Additional Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) issued under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (as amended) (hereinafter referred to as the COFEPOSA Act as amended) against Shri Chhiba Vallabhabhai Tandel, father of the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the detenu) residing at Navi On, Nani Daman. The impugned order of detention which bas been filed with the petition as Annexure A has been issued by the aforesaid detaining authority on being satisfied that with a view to preventing the detenu from smuggling goods, it is necessary to make the impugned order of detention.

(2.) The detenu was served with .the aforesaid order of detention alongwith the grounds on which tbil detention order was made by the grounds dated 28th June, 1984 filed as Annexure B to the writ petition.

(3.) Case of the detaining authority was that a suspected vessel was intercepted at about 19 hours on 21st March, 1984 during the course of sea patrolling in between Hazira and Gopi Nath and on preliminary investigation of the crew which consisted of nine persons on board, the name of the vessel was discovered as Naranprasad. OnT detailed examination of the said vessel, the goods of foreign origin of the value of Rs. 1,07,97,163/-were seized by the customs officers. Crew member Fakir Morar in his deposition before the customs officers on 23rd March, ] 984 disclosed that the suspect vessel belonged to the detenu and the vessel was registered in the name of his wife and that the detenu had told him that he bad to work as a tindel of the vessel Naranprasad and had to go to Kborfakhan for bringing con. traband goods from Khorfakhan to Daman; that before going to Khorfakhan, the detenu had come on the board and had given instructions of what goods were to be brought. The said Fakir Morar gave a detailed statement how the goods were loaded on the vessel and how they were brought and how they were intercepted. The Customs Officers also examined other 8 crew members. They implicated the detenu. One of the crew member Mohan Badhu also deposed that he was associated with the detenu in the smuggling activities since March, 1983. The aforesaid 9 crew members while they were in judicial Custody of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Mahuva, vide their letters dated 11-6-1984 & 12-6-1984 retracted their versions contained in their respective statements disclosed earlier and stated that they had not mentioned anything about the detenu before the Customs Officers. It was also stated in para 9 of the grounds that. On 2.5 84 when the said 9 crew members were shown their photographs by the Superintendent of Customs, Shore Guard, Mahuva for identification they stated that they were not prepared to sign on the said photographs in token of the identification as the Advocate had told them not to sign on any document or photograph. It is therefore, evident that, the aforesaid retractions at a belated stage was at the instructions of the Advocate.