SUSHIL KUMAR AHUJA Vs. TARUN ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In persuance of the detention order dated' 30/9/1986, the petitioner was taken into detention on 8/10/1986. The detention order was passed with a view to preventing the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the augmentation of foreign exchange.

(2.) The detention order is based in respect of an incident dated 30/5/1986 when one V.K. Gaur, an employee of the State Bank of India was caught with U.S. $ 800.00 and Saudi Riyal 8350.00 which he was carrying on his person. He made a confession that he was delivering Foreign Exchange to present petitioner who was also employed with the State Bank of India posted at Padam Singh Road, Karol Bagh Branch, New Delhi. He had also given the home address of the petitioner.

(3.) The principal contention of Mr. Harjinder Singh is that the meeting of the Advisory Board was held on 3/12/1986 and on the same date, a representation was made to it in which the detenue who was present in the Board's Meeting together with his co-detenu V.K. Gaur, had made a written representation that Shri J.C. Gupta Advocate, one Bidhani, Mrs. Ahuja who were present outside the room may be examined as his witnesses in rebuttal of the grounds of detention. Mr. Harjinder Singh has urged that since the Advisory Board's failure to examine his witnesses has prived him of his Constitutional right under Article 22(4) and (5), the detention order stands vitiated.