HAJI IKRAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The detenu, Haji Ikram, was detained in pursuance of a 4etention order dated 27th January, 1986 passed by Shri M.L. Wadhawan, AddI. Secretary to the Government of India under section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (as amended). This order was passed with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the conservalion of foreign exchange. Tile detention order was actually executed on 27th May 1986. The detention of the detenu is being challenged by the detenus brother, Akbar Ali.

(2.) The main allegation as is surfacing from the grounds of detention is that the detenu was procuring business for one Parvez Alam Dost who was running a traveling agency in Delhi. The modus operandi was that the detenu would bring passengers from and around his town of Kairana, Distt. Muzaffarnagar (U.P.) who were intending to go to Pakistan and for this purpose he was charging them Rs. 50/- per head. Allegedly, during the course of conduct of such activities the detenu rendered assistance to said Parvez Alam Dost in procuring foreign exchange fraudulently for such intending passengers. In the grounds of detention the allegations are summed up as follows: As a result of the same, it is revealed that entries were forged in the passports (i.e.) alteration of photos, alteration of date of birth of the passport bolder and inclusion of names of fictitious children in the passport and thereby foreign exchange of US Dollars 52,500 was fraudulently obtained/otherwise acquired on attempted to be otherwise acquired by you and your associates. Details of such 27 instances were furnished to the detenu along with the grounds of detention.

(3.) Mr. Trilok Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a number of contentions. On consideration of the contentions raised I find that he bas raised two preliminary contentions, which alone are relevant for the disposal of this petition. But before I deal with those contentions, I may state that the effort of Mr. Trilok Kumar was to put across to me the fact that grounds of detention were passed on no material against the detenu. I do not find any merit in this contention because the case of detenu cannot be looked in isolation of the case of other associates. Moreover, it is not for this court to go into the sufficiency or insufficiency of material as even the Advisory Board bas found sufficient material for the detention of the detenu. The entire grounds of detention become relevant in respect of the detenu when one considers the effect of total evidence on the activities of the detenu and his associates.