NARINDER BAHAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner through the present writ petition haschallegned the detention Order No. F.5/19/94/H(P-11) dated 13/07/1994 passedunder Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange & Prevention ofSmuggling Activities Act, 1974 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act for the sake ofconvenience) by Lt. Governor of Delhi, and Declaration No. 14/94 dated 16/08/1994 under Section 9 of the said Act issued by Additional Secretary to theGovernment of India.

(2.) Brief facts for the proper appreciation of the points involved herein areenumerated as under: that one package bearing the name of the petitioner containing 1470 spectacle frames and 5000 integrated circuits concealed in refrigerator andwashing machine, was interpcepted by the Preventive Officers of the Air CargoUnit. Yet another consignment landed at the Airport on 24/03/1994 fromSingapore bearing the same address and passport number but in the name of adifferent consignee. A scrutiny of the same resulted in the recovery of the U-maticV.C.R. & Cordless Telephones of foreign origin hidden in the refrigerator andmusic system. The petitioner is alleged to have claimed the said consignment asbelonging to him vide his statement recorded under Section 108 of the CustomsAct.

(3.) The petitioner is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in the instant case.He was forced to make the statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act.However, he retracted the same at the first available opportunity before the TrialCourt. The impugned order of detention is illegal and invalid inasmuch as thealleged occurrence is dated 23/03/1994 yet no order of detention was passed till 13/07/1994. The long and undue delay in passing the impugned order hassnapped the nexus in between the alleged activity and the activity sought to becurbed by passing the impugned order: The petitioner has not been supplied someof the documents which were relied upon by the Detaining Authority. Non/supplyof the documents mentioned in para 3(ii) of the petition has vitiated the impugnedorder. The petitioner was thus deprived of an opportunity to make an effective andpurposeful representation under Art. 22(5) of the Constitution of India.