PAWAN KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pawan Kumar, petitioner has challenged the order of detention dated 10.5.1993 passed under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange & Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") in pursuance of which, he was detained on 20.9.1993. The order, aforesaid, was pasted by Shri Mahinder Prasad, Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance for the detention of Pawan Kumar and to be detained with a view to preventing him in future from acting in any marine prejudicial to the augmentation of foreign exchange. The grounds of detention were served upon the petitioner simultaneously when he was detained.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts leading to the passing of the detention order against the petitioner are that the Delhi Zonal Office of Enforcement Directorate had information about one Atam Prakash indulging in illegal sale/purchase of foreign exchange and sending the same to one Nirmal Dhanuka of Kathmandu, Nepal through some persons including the petitioner Pawan Kumar: On the basis of specific information, officers of the Enforcement Directorate apprehended the petitioner while going to Kathmandu by Royal Nepal Airlines Flight No. RA-218 on 26.1.1993. During interrogation, Pawan Kumar admitted having kept concealed 2 packets of foreign exchange in his ractum, which, he voluntarily ejected out and on opening, foreign currency of 750 ponds, DM 2000 and USD 3085 besides one loose sheet were recovered from Bundle No. I while Ponds 1400, USD 9022, Canadian Dollars 250 and DM 4000 were found from the second bundle. In his statement, under Section 40 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, Pawan Kumar admitted the recovery of the foreign exchange in the manner stated above, and also gave facts as to how the foreign exchange was being given to him by Atam Prakash and how he was taking the same to D Kathmandu. Atam Prakash, Vinod Kumar and others were also examined and all the facts were considered before passing of the impugned order.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record.