SHAKIL AHMED ANSARI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges the order of his detention dated May 10, 1995, passed by the Joint Secretary, Government of India, under section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short 'the COFEPOSA Act'). The facts giving rise to this petition are as under :

(2.) On January 31, 1995, one Shri Mohd. Shahnawaz was apprehended by the police authorities at Sikar. He was found to be carrying Rs. 8.18 lakhs in Indian currency. On being questioned by the police Mohd. Shahnawaz stated that the said amount belonged to the petitioner and was meant for hawala payments. Same day the said amount was seized under section 38 of the foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, (for short 'the FERA') by Enforcement Officer, Enforcement Directorate, Jaipur, vide panchnama dated January 31, 1995. Shri Mohd. Shahnawaz in his statement of the same date recorded under section 40 of the FERA gave details 'of the activities and involvement of the petitioner in the hawala transactions. He stated that the said amount was to be paid to certain persons as per the instructions of the petitioner. The slip on which instructions were given by the petitioner was produced by Mohd. Shahnawaz. He also stated that the petitioner used to give him money along with names and addresses of the persons to whom hawala payments were to be made, and he used to make the payments as per his directions. It was also said that the petitioner and his brother-in-law Shri Riyaz Ahmed were equal partners in the hawala business, and while Shri Riyaz Ahmed used to collect money in Saudi Arabia from the Indians working there, the petitioner used to distribute the same to different persons in India through him. Pursuant to the statement of Mohd. Shahnawaz, the residential premises of the petitioner, situate at C-184/27B, Chauhan Banger, Gali No.4, New Seelampur, Delhi, were searched under section 37 of the FERA by the officers of the Enforcement Directorate on February 2, 1995, resulting in recovery and seizure of documents detailed in the panchnama dated February 2, 1995. While the search of the residential premises of the petitioner was in progress one Mohd. Gulfam entered the said premises. His personal search resulted in recovery and seizure of a slip pad as detailed in the panchnama dated February 2, 1995. Shri Mohd. Gulfam in his statement dated February 2, 1995, stated that he started working with his cousin Shri Mohd. Shahnawaz and delivered hawala money to various persons from January 7, 1995 onwards. The slip pad recoveered from Mohd. Gulfam contained the names of certain persons to whom hawala money was delivered.

(3.) The statement of the petitioner was also recorded under section 40 of the FERA wherein he admitted his involvement and that of his brother-in-law Riyaz Ahmed Ansari in hawala transactions. On February 3, 1995, the petitioner was arrested under section 35 of the FERA by the Enforcement Officer and on February 4, 1995, he was produced before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, who remanded him to judicial custody till February 18, 1995. On February 9, 1995, the petitioner filed an application before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, for grant of bail. On February 18, 1995, the Enforcement Directorate sought further remand of the petitoner. The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, by his order dated February 18, 1995, remanded the petitioner to judicial custody till March 4, 1995 which was extended from time to time. Meanwhile, on February 22, 1995, the bail application of the petitioner was also rejected by order of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi. Subsequently, on April 20, 1995, the petitioner moved a bail application which was granted by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, on April 21, 1995, subject to certain conditions. On May 10, 1995, the Joint Secretary, Government of India, specially empowered under section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act made an order of detention against the petitioner. It is this order of detention which has been challenged by the petitioner before us.