BAL CHAND BANSAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner a detenu under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act 1974 (for short 'the Act'), seeks to have the order of detention quashed and also issuance of a writ of habcas corpus directing the respondents to produce the petitioner and then to set him at liberty.

(2.) The petitioner was arrested on 3-4-1987 for offences under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1973 and produced before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, who remanded him to judicial custody up to 13-4-1987. The impugned order of detention was made on 13-4-1987 with a view to preventing the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the conservation of foreign exchange. In the order of detention the petitioner has been described as Bal Chand @ Bal Chand Bansal @ Bal Chand Aggarwal @ Bal Chand Rajgarhia. The petitioner was detained in pursuance to the order of detention on 13-4-1987 itself while he was in judicial custody. He was also communicated the grounds of his detention as required under sub-s. (3) of S. 3 of the Act. He was told that if he wanted to make a representation against his detention to the detaining authority or to the Central Government, he could do so. He was also told that if he desired to make a representation to the Advisory Board that also he could do and further that he would be heard by the Advisory Board in due course. Hearing before the Advisory Board took place on 30-4-1987. The petitioner was present with his two counsel. The Advisory Board sent its report dated 21-5-1937 with covering letter dated 3-6-1987. It was of the opinion that there was sufficient cause for the detention of the petitioner. Meanwhile, the present petition was filed on 2-5-1987.

(3.) The grounds of detention are in the narrative form and may be briefly referred to. Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate, received secret information on 27-1-1987 that certain firms were engaged in import of goods from places outside India and had remitted huge funds abroad against import documents received from Hongkong and Singapore but no corresponding imports in fact took place. Enquiries revealed that five firms were involved in clandestinely remitting of the funds aboard. These were :