AMIRALI DATTOO DALLA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE criminal Writ Petitions No. 248/86 Amirali Datto Dalla v. Union of India and others, 1987(1) RCR(Crl.) 451 (Delhi) and Criminal Writ no. 249/86 Mrs. Munira Badrudin Suleman v. Union of India and others, challenging the same order of detention, are being cased of by this order.

(2.) THE facts in brief are that the Officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence through intelligence reports received information that a Tanzanian national the present petitioner (Crl. Writ No. 248/86 alongwith others, was engaged in smuggling gold into India from time to time. As a result of surveillance, the petitioner was spotted by the Officers when he arrived at Delhi Airport on 11.5.1986 by flight BA-oo3 from London. He was accompanied by a lady named Ms. Munira Suleman, (the petitioner in Crl. W. No. 249/86 also of Tanzanian nationality. While Munira Suleman checked in at Hotel Maurya Sheraton, Amirali Datto checked in at Taj Palace Hotel, New Delhi. At about 6.30 p.m. on the same day, the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, New Delhi along with to employees of Hotel Maurya Sheraton went to room No. 1143 in the same hotel. On knocking at the door, already opened the door. She was summoned and was escorted along with her luggage to the D.R.I. Office. A little later, the petitioner (I Cr. W. No. 248/86) along with his luggage was also brought to the D.R.I. office from Hotel Taj Palace, on examination of one suit-case of Mrs. Munira Suleman, Six Paper pockets were found concealed inside the personal belongings. There were found to contain 60 gold biscuits or 10 totals each with foreign marking. The examination of the suit case of Amirali Dattoo Dalla Resulted in the recovery of 40 gold biscuits of 10 totals each from 4 paper packets. The total value of the gold was assessed at Rs. 23 lakhs. The hundred gold biscuits were seized under the provisions of the Customs Act by the Officers of the D.R.I. in the reasonable belief that these gold biscuits were smuggled into India and would, therefore, be liable to confiscation. The foreign currency recovered from the petitioners was, however, returned to them. The statements of both the petitioners were recorded, who inter alia, admitted having deal in contraband gold through a number of couriers since 1982 and in this connection paid numerous visits to various countries. They also gave in minute details how the recovery of 100 gold biscuits was effected from them on 11.5.1986. In the follow-up action, number of searches were conducted but nothing incriminating was found. The statements of various witnesses were also recorded. However, on the basis of the material on record, Shri M.L. Wadhawan, Additional Secretary to the Government of India, was satisfied that with a view to prevent the petitioners from smuggling goods, engaging in keeping smuggling goods and dealing in smuggled goods, their detention is necessary. The order of detention was passed on 19.5.1986 and was served on the petitioners on the same day. Within a period of 35 days, the same officers issued declaration under Section 9(1) of the COFEPOSA Act (as amended) thereby extending the detention for a period of 2 years from the date of detention. This very order of detention is under challenge on the following amongst other grounds :-

(3.) THE question that requires consideration at this stage is, whether this report and the admission made thereon has influenced the mind of the detaining authority or not. If yes, then the copy of this report should have been given pari passu the grounds of detention, otherwise not. Learned Counsel for the petitioner referred to and replied upon two facts. Firstly, accordingly to the petitioner, in the remand application before A.C.M.M. New Delhi, the department made an averment that the investigations made so far have revealed that the petitioners are the members of a well organised gang of smugglers who are constantly employing several courtiers, including ladies for smuggling gold into India and taking out of India the sale proceeds in foreign exchange on a collosol scale. Secondly, this very averment is again repeated in the grounds of detention served on the petitioner. Learned Counsel pointed out that this was the only material document with the respondents proving the modus operandi of the petitioners in smuggling gold into India, arranging for the foreign exchange and then against bringing the gold with the sale proceeds thereof. Further more, the department not only got proved this document during the interrogation of the petitioner but also obtained his signatures so that the petitioner may be bound by the same.