ANAND SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged his detention under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (in short the Act). The petitioner was detained on 2.4.1987 in pursuance to order dated 24-3-1987 passed by Mr. Tarun Roy, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi, respondent No.2 under section 3(1) of the Act on his satisfaction that it was necessary to detain the petitioner with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods. The petitioner was communicated the grounds of his detention. His detention, it appears, was subsequently confirmed under clause (f) of section 8 of the Act on the report of the Advisory Board constituted under Article 22 of the Constitution that in the opinion of the Advisory Board there was sufficient cause for the detention of the petitioner. Under section 10 of the Act the petitioner was directed to be detained for a period of one year from the date of his detention.

(2.) Grounds of detention are in narrative form and may briefly be stated. It was on 4th September 1986 that the petitioner along with five others was apprehended at Sahar International Airport, Bombay. All these six persons had arrived by a Cathay Pacific Airways flight from Hongkong. Each one of these persons declared certain goods brought by them and paid customs duty thereon. However, on suspicion they were questioned if they were carrying any contraband item including gold. They first denied but then their persons were examined with the help of metal detector, which gave a sound indication indicating the presence of some metallic substance inside the body of these persons. Ultimately, all the persons except the petitioner admitted that they had concealed gold packets in their rectums. Metal detector had given indication in the case of petitioner as well. All these six persons were asked to eject one by one gold from their rectums in the toilet. While five other persons were having ejected three packets each the petitioner ejected one packet containing two gold bars of 10 tolas each. The market value of the gold recovered from the petitioller was Rs. 52,003/-. In all 39 gold bars of 10 tolas each and two gold bars of 100 grams each and valuing over Rs. 1050 lakhs were recovered from all the six persons. These were seized under the Customs Act, 1962. Certain other documents like air tickets, boarding passes, baggage tags etc. were also taken into possession. Statements of all the six persons were recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. It is stated that during the examination one of the six persons namely Man Mohan Singh Malhotra gave a slip and escaped. The customs officers also caught hold of a person by the name Gurvinder Singh Alag who had come to the airport and had given money for payment of customs duty to these six persons. The grounds further state that it was one Kuldeep Singh Arjun Singh Alag who had received a Burn of Rs. 28.000/- at his residence from Man Mohan Singh Malhotra in the presence of Shiv Narayan and Kamal Jeet Singh Dhawan being two of the six persons detained and Kuldeep Singh Arjun Singh Alag had in turn handed- over this money on 4-9-86 to his brother Gurvinder Singh with instructions to wait outside the Sahar Airport, Bombay, and to give the money to Kamal Jeet 8ingb Dhawan; Shiv Narayan and Man Mohan Singh Malhotra. The petitioner in his statement recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 stated that due to financial hardship he had made as many as nine trips abroad earlier and had brought goods like V.C.R, textiles, new wearing apparels, etc. and sold the same at profit in India. It was the first time that he had brought gold and he narrated as to how he was asked to bring gold by one Hazi Mohd in Hongkong. The petitioner stated that one Nazir Ahmad was to come to the airport and to collect the gold from him and he in turn was to be paid commission on his next visit to Hongkong. He stated he was to get Rs 1,000/- per gold bar. On these allegations the detaining authority was satisfied that the petitioner had smuggled goods into India and unless prevented he would continue to do so in future and also observed that although both prosecution and departmental adjudication proceedings under the Custom Act 1962hadbeen initiated against the petitioner it was yet necessary to detain him under the Act with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods in future.

(3.) The detention of the petitioner has been challenged on various grounds by Mr. Sharma. He stated that passport of the petitioner had been taken over by the authorities and in the absence of that it was impossible for the petitioner to go abroad and further that all the relevant documents were not supplied to the petitioner in spite of his demand. Mr. Sharma also stated that the subjective satisfaction of respondent No.2 was vitiated inasmuch as documents like the bail application, remand applications and reply to the show cause notice by the petitioner were not placed before the detaining authority. He also submitted that delay in passing the impugned order of detention vitiated the detention of the petitioner.