S K SHARMA Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged his detention pursuant to an order passed by the respondent on 26th August, 1986, under Section 3(1) read with Section 2(f) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. The detention order was passed with a view to preventing him from engaging in transporting, concealing and keeping smuggled goods.

(2.) The detention order has been passed pursuant to an incident, which took place on the night intervening 18th and 19th of June, 1986. The petitioner is a police officer and was on security duty at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi. In this capacity he was a card holder who could frequently enter and come out of the Airport. The petitioner was seen coming out from the Departure Hall of the aforesaid Airport with his head bare and was moving towards a three wheeler scooter. He was holding his cap in his left armpit with his right hand. He was intercepted by the Customs Officers and smuggled gold worth about Rs. 9,41,600/- was recovered from his uniform cap. It is this incident actually which has been made basis for the detention.

(3.) Mr. Mehta arguing on behalf of the petitioner has urged that the detaining authority has relied on the statement of one Bhoop Singh Chawdhary, a panch witness but his statement despite his representation, has not been supplied a copy of that statement, The argument raised is that by not supplying him a copy of that statement the detention authority has deprived him of making an effective and purposeful representation. Indeed this contention has been raised in the petition and a demand has also been made in the representation moved by the petitioner. Mr. Mehta has further submitted that at no stage was he informed that there is no statement dated 19th June, 1986 of Bhoop Singh Chawdhary in existence and even in the reply to his representation he has been informed that statement of Bhoop Singh Chawdhary dated 24th June, 1986 has already been supplied to him with the grounds of detention.