RAJESH MONGA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Rajesh Monga has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of his detendon made under Section 3(1) .read with Section 2(f) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange .and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short 'the 'Act'.) by the Administrator of the Union Territory of Delhi with a' view to preventing him from abetting the smuggling of goods,' The order was mad'e on August 16, 1985. It was served on the petitioner on October 7, 1985 when he was detained.

(2.) He was served with the grounds of detention on October 10, 1985. These are in narrative form and run into 29 pages. The main ground is the incriminating statement of Sunil Kumar Sood who arrived at the Delhi Airport from Hongkong on August 20, 1984. He declared the contents of his baggage and was assessed to the duty accordingly. The search of his bag- gage, however, revealed excess and concealed goods of the value of Rs. 56,050. His statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act was recorded. He, inter alia, stated that he had gone to Hongkong on August t1, 1984 along with Bhupinder Monga and Deepak Sehgal. Bhupinder had taken with him foreign and Indian Currency given to him by the petitioner. They made purchases in Hongkong. The goods were concealed by Bhupinder and Deepak in the suit case, T.V. etc. and were to be handed over to the petitioner at the airport. The petitioner had paid his air ticket and had also paid the duty assessed on the declared goods. The petitioner had, asked him (Sunil Kumar Sood) not to declare the goods found in excess. The endorsement on the passport on Sunil Kumar Sood showed that prior to this visit he had gone to Hongkong earlier only on August 1, 1984.

(3.) Bhupinder Monga who had also arrived at Delhi Airport by the same flight was found in possession of excess and undeclared goods of the value of Rs. 39,636. In his statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act he stated that he had visited Hongkong five times earlier and had sold the goods brought by him on profit. He had earlier imported a T.V. and paid the duty on taking a loan from the petitioner which had been returned. The petitioner knew that he (Bhupinder Monga) was bringing button cells concealed in his baggage. The petitioner bad brought money for payment of duty. The petitioner knew about his (Bhupinder's) illegal activities and lent his money.