RAM DASS CHAUHAN Vs. ADMINISTRATOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition for the issue of a Writ of Habeus Corpus directing the release of the brother of the petitioner who has been detained in pursuance of an order made by the Administrator of the Union Territory of Delhi on 12/3/1986 in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 3(1) read with Section 2(f) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 ("COFEPOSA ACT").

(2.) Ram Dass Chauhan, a Sweeper employed at the Delhi Airport in Air India, was detained on 12/4/1986 in pursuance of the above order and the grounds of detention were served on him on the 13/4/1986. The detention was the result of an incident on the 14/7/1985 & 15/7/1985 at the Delhi Airport when some gold biscuits of foreign origin were recovered from one Day a Ram, also a Sweeper in Air India. The grounds of detention broadly were that the detenu, who was travelling by Air India Flight 301 from Hong Kong to Bombay with a stop over at Delhi, had handed over an air sickness bag to Daya Ram. The allegation of the authorities was that the air sickness bag, which was found to contain sixteen gold biscuits, valued at Rs. 2,70,750.00 had been brought from Hong Kong and handed over to Daya Ram. The further case of the enforcement authorities was that the smuggling was done by the detenu in collusion with one Parminder Singh who was also a copassenger with the detenu on the same flight, that the gold biscuits had been slided by the said Parminder Singh hidden under his seat in the air sickness bag with the intention that it should be handed over by the detenu to Daya Ram when the latter came to clean the aircraft when it stopped over at Delhi. The detenu was also arrested on 15/7/1985 and statements were recorded from both Daya Ram and the detenu. Parminder Singh, however, obtained anticipatory bail. Eventually an order was passed by the competent authority,. detaining Ram Dass Chauhan under the COFEPOSA Act.

(3.) Several objections have been taken on behalf of the petitioner to the order of detention. But it is not necessary to consider them in detail. It is sufficient to refer to two of the principal objections raised on behalf of the' petitioner as, in our view, consideration thereof is sufficient to dispose of the present petition. These contentions are :-