MAHESH CHANDER VERMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At about 11.15 a.m. on 10-5-86, Shri Rakesh Kumar Verma, the present petitioner was found coming from Nepal Ganj on a rickshaw. On the way, he was stopped and questioned by the customs officials at the Land Customs Station, Nepal Ganj Road, District Bahraich, U.P. His personal search was conducted in the presence of two impartial witnesses, which resulted in the recovery of 7 gold rings from his bag, hidden under a medical tape. From his personal search, 19 gold rings were discovered hidden under a medical tape. The gold biscuit was found hidden on the thigh of his left leg. The contraband gold was weighed and found to be 1010.347 grams of the approximate value of Rs. 2,12,569-OOP. The petitioner could not show a valid import licence in respect of the recovered gold. The customs officials were convinced that the said foreign property was being brought by the petitioner from Nepal to India illegally. After preparing panchnama, the property was seized and the petitioner was arrested.

(2.) In his statement recorded on the same day, the petitioner admitted the recovery of the contraband gold. He disclosed that the said gold was given to him at Thumbaji cross road at Nepal Ganj by one Sahu against the payment of Rs. 1,70,000/-. Subsequently, the customs officials conducted the search of his house from where imported/foreign cloth worth. Rs. 994/- was recovered. On the basis of the material Dr. R.S. Asthana, Joint Secretary, Home and Confidential Department, Government of U.P. felt satisfied that the petitioner is engaged in the smuggling and with a view to prevent him from smuggling, transporting, concealing and keeping smuggled goods, it has become necessary to detain him. The order of detention is dated 16-10-86. It was duly served on the petitioner on 2-12-86. Since then he is in custody.

(3.) By way of the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of detention on numerous grounds. The main attack is the delay of 5 months, which has occasioned in the passing of the order of detention. The submission is that the order of detention was based on a solitary Incident having taken place on 10-5-86, while the detaining authority took about 5 months time to make up Its mind: the order of detention is invalid there being no proximity between the prejudicial activity and the impugned order; further more, the respondents have failed to furnish any satisfactory explanation for the delayed action. This fact alone is sufficient to vitiate the order of detention.