AMRIT LAL SETH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) For years now the superior courts in our country have been at pains to point out that preventive detention under the preventive detention laws is permissible only by a strict and meticulous compliance with the provisions of the relevant preventive detention law sought to be invoked and the provisions of the Constitution. Time and again, the Courts have had to, though with some regaret, order a detenu to be set at liberty because of lapses on the part of the administrative authorities. This is yet one other such case.

(2.) The petitioner, Amrit, Lal Seth has been detained by virtue of an order dated July 21, 1984 passed by an Additional Secretary to the Government of India in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods and abetting the smuggling of goods. The petitioner challenges the said detention order and his continued detention as a consequence of the said order having been executed.

(3.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are these. Searches pursuant to intelligence received on July 13, 1984 that huge quantities of contraband goods like scotch whisky and foreign marked gold worth several lakhs of rupees were lying in the possession of Amrit Lal Seth and one Jaswinder Singh and also on the basis of intelligence reports earlier received regarding alleged smuggling activities of Amrit Lal Seth, searches of the residential and business premises of Ami-it Lal Seth were conducted by the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence on July 13 and 14, 1984. Certain recoveries were allegedly made from the residential and business premises of Amrit Lal Seth. His statement was recorded by officers of the aforesaid Directorate on July 14 and 15, 1984. Simultaneously, one Jaswinder Singh, said to be an associate of the petitioner was also detained by the officers of the said Directorate and interrogated on July 14 and 15, 1984. Attempts made by petitioner's advocate to have an interview with the petitioner on July 14, 1984 were unsuccessful. A telegraphic complaint in that regard was sent to the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. Communications were sent to Hon'ble the Finance Minister as well as to the Secretary, Delhi Administration, Delhi regarding denial of interview to an Advocate with his client, namely, the petitioner. Allegedly, the petitioner was made to give incriminating statement under duress and torture. Jaswinder Singh's wife also sent a telegram Complaining about her husband's illegal detention on July 14, 1984. On being released from interrogation the petitioner on July 16, 1984 retracted the statement alleged to have been made by him under Section 108 of the Customs Act to the officers of the said Directorate. Likewise, Jaswinder Singh also retracted the statement alleged to have been made by him on July 18,1984. One Kailash Kumar was also interrogated by the officers of the said Directorate. He also retracted his statement by communication dated July 18,1984. As noticed earlier, the impugned detention order was passed on July 21, 1984. The petitioner was, however, not arrested, as allegedly he absconded. On September 22, 1984, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence informed the petitioner's advocate about the detention order having been passed on July 21, 1984 in regard to the petitioner. The petitioner's advocate by a communication dated October 11, 1984 asked the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence to supply him the grounds of detention. On October 22, 1984 an order either under Section 7(l)(a) or 7(l)(b) of the said Act is stated to have been passed in regard to the petitioner. A representation made on behalf of the petitioner to the Hon'ble the Finance Minister is said to have been rejected as per the communication dated October 26, 1984. Yet a second representation for revocation of the detention order was also rejected on November 17, 1984. On January 2, 1985 a show cause notice was issued by the Customs Authorities to the petitioner to show cause why time for holding the documents and other material seized should not be extended. A reply was sent on behalf of the petitioner to the show cause notice on January 3, 1985, and on January 10, 1985 an order was passed extending the time for holding the documents. On January 14, 1985, a representation was made by the petitioner to the President of India. This representation was rejected as per communication dated March 13, 1985. A writ petition was filed by the manager and son of the petitioner on March 16, 1985 complaining about the alleged high handedness of the officials of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. That is still pending in this Court. On inspection of the record it was discovered that the Central Government had passed an order under Section 7(l)(a) of the aforesaid Act and not under Section 7(l)(b). The petitioner was actually arrested from Sir Ganga Ram Hospital where he was under medical treatement on April 12, 1985 and was served with the order of detention as well as grounds of detention dated July 21, 1984. The present petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus was filed in this Court on April 18, 1985 and rule nisi was obtained on April 19, 1985.