NARINDER SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Habeas Corpus petition has been instituted on the footing of delay as well as the fact that the petitioner is totally unconnected with the incidents which led to the order being passed under COFEPOSA. The order of detention was passed on 5th Aug. 1985 under S.3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 by the Administrator of the Union Territory of Delhi. The grounds of detention show that it is the result of the arrival of some consignment of 14 packages which arrived from Hong Kong on 9th April, 1984. The consignment was addressed to Gurcharan Singh care of Frigo India, 13/2, Jor Bagh Market, New Delhi, and was to be collected by Kuldip Singh of Faiz Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. The detention order is passed sixteen months later in respect of a person who was neither the consignee, nor consignor, nor collector of the parcel. The parcel was found to contain video cassette recorders, telephones, sakura colour paper, fabrics and other household goods which were valued at Rs. 15 lakhs and odd. This petition could have been allowed immediately on the short ground that the detention order is highly belated. The requirement of law as laid down by the Supreme Court is that there should be close proximity of the incident and the detention order but if there is any delay caused by obtaining the facts the same could lead to the inference that there has been no real delay. In the present case, there is a delay of sixteen months. So, an explanation showing that the Department concerned was collecting material for sixteen months has to be made available. The counter-affidavit shows that the material was being collected up to October, 1984 or so but the delay thereafter is inexplicable. The explanation given is that Narinder Singh was absconding and the report of the Forensic Laboratory was received in December, 1984 and thereafter the case was filed under the Customs Act on 18th Jan. 1985. The Collector of Customs sent a proposal for detention of the petitioner and four other persons for 8th Feb. 1984 but the Department remained busy in connection with some other cases which were being dealt with and, therefore, no order of detention could be passed in this case. This is no explanation at all. The same has been rejected by this Court in a recently decided petition Narender Singh v. Union of India, Cr. W. No. 193 of 1985 decided on 29th Nov, 1985, and similar explanations have been rejected in other cases.

(2.) Learned counsel relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court reported as AIR 1982 SC 1722 Ashok Narain v. UOI in which the delay of eight months was treated as well spent in order to investigate the full circumstances of the case. Here investigation was complete in Oct. 1984, while the detention order was passed on 5th Aug. 1985. Thus, this explanation is of no avail. This might have explained the delay only up to Oct, 1984 but not thereafter.

(3.) This was a short ground on which the petition could have been allowed and the detention order quashed. However, there is most striking point in this case which is that the grounds are entirely vague qua the petitioner. In order to appreciate this point, it must be noticed that the detention order was the result of a seizure made of fourteen packages which arrived in a particular flight from Hongkong and were covered by Air Way Bills No. 217-2706-5301 and 217-27487132 which were addressed to Gurcharan Singh c/o Frigo India, Jor Bagh Market, New Delhi and marked Self from Hongkong and the consignment covered under Air Way Bill No. 217-2643-7132 was collected by one Kuldip Singh resident of Faiz Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. When the parcel was opened it was found to contain valuable articles valued at Rs. 15 lakhs, as mentioned earlier in this judgment. The investigating authority noted that another similar consignment had arrived for Gurcharan Singh on 21-3-84 and this had been taken delivery of by one Mohinder Singh. In making investigation the residential premises of Mohinder Singh were also searched and a paper slip was found which mentioned the Air Way Bill No. 217-2747-7132. Some other documents were also seized. As Narinder Singh, the petitioner, is the brother of Mohinder Singh, it was also thought that he was involved in the operations. The grounds of detention regarding Narinder Singh are as follows : -