KIMTI LAL SETHI Vs. LT. GOVERNOR, DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has been detained under the provisions of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter called COFEPOSA) by an order dated 17.9.1992. The detention is for a period of one year. Questioning the said order this writ petition has been filed on 23.7.1994 under the following circumstances.

(2.) On 31.3.1992 the petitioner was intercepted by the Customs Officers at the I.G.I. Airport while he was leaving for Dubai. As a result of the search by the authorities on his person, it is said that foreign currency equivalent in Indian Rupees worth Rs. 1,78,286 was recovered. Thereafter the petitioner made a confessional statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act which, according to the petitioner was obtained under coercion. The petitioner was arrested and produced before the A.C.M.M. New Delhi, who remanded him to judicial custody. On 16.4.1992 he was granted bail by the learned A.C.M.M. upon furnishing of a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000 with one surety in the like amount. The petitioner then moved an application for furnishing cash security for the purpose of his bail and the same was granted. While he was on bail, the petitioner then filed an application on 7.1.1994 stating that due to certain circumstances he has to withdraw the cash security and that upon such withdrawal he was prepared to surrender. Accordingly, the application was allowed and on his surrender he was taken into judicial custody. Eleven days thereafter the present detention order dated 17.9.1992 was served on him while he was in judicial custody. The petitioner sent a representation on 1.8.2.1994 to the detaining authority through the Jail Superintendent, but the same was rejected on 2.3.1994 by the detaining authority and the said proceedings were served on him on 21.3.1994. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition as stated above.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner also produced before us a copy of the order, dated 1.8.1994 of the learned A.C.M.M. discharging the petitioner from the prosecution proceedings. This order was passed by the said A.C.M.M. because the prosecution was not able to produce any witness in spite of several opportunities having been granted to the prosecution. Learned counsel also submits that there is an application under Section 11 by the petitioner which is still pending with the Central Government.