KULDEEP SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) .The petitioner was detained by virtue of an order passed on 12 January 1993 by the Lt. Governor of National Capital Territory of Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short the COFEPOSA).

(2.) .On 6 June 1992 the petitioner, holder of an Indian passport, arrived from Dubai and after completing immigration formalities, opted to walk through the green channel but at the exit gate he was intercepted by an Air Customs Officer and was diverted for screening of his baggage. On examination he was found to be carrying 42 pieces of Gold of 24 carat purity, collectively weighing 500 grams valued at Rs.2,57,500 (M.V.), concealed in brackets of handles of the suitcase and briefcase, in a compact powder box and in a digital alarm clock, belonging to him and these were seized. His passport, air ticket, baggage tags etc. were also impounded. Petitioner's statement was recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, wherein he is alleged to have admitted the recovery and seizure of the aforenoted Gold.

(3.) .A scrutiny of petitioner's passport revealed that he had gone abroad for very short durations ranging from 3 days to 6 days on 14 July 1990 (Singapore), 8 August 1990 (Dubai), 29 December 1991 (Dubai) and 3 June 1992 (Dubai). He was arrested and produced in the Court of Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi (for short the ACMM, New Delhi) on 7 June 1992, who remanded him to judicial custody till 20 June 1992, which was further extended upto 10 July 1992. While he was in jail, he made an application dated 25 June 1992 in the Court of ACMM, New Delhi for grant of bail, which was allowed subject to certain conditions on 29 June 1992 and he was released on the same date. A complaint under Sections 132 and 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act was also filed against the petitioner on 2 July 1992 in the Court of ACMM, New Delhi; the Magistrate took cognizance; summoned the petitioner and it appears from the proceedings sheet (annexed to the writ petition) that the petitioner was granted bail on the same date and the trial proceeded.