ASHOK KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition the petitioner seeks to have a writ issued calling upon the respondents to set him at liberty and to quash the order of detention dated 16-12-1987 issued by respondent No. 2 Mr. Tarun Roy, Joint Secretary to the Government of India. The petitioner was detained on 21-3-1987 and is presently confined in the District Jail. Bharatpur (Rajasthan). He was detained in pursuance of the order dated 16-2-1987 of respondent No. 2 made under S.3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act 1974 (for short 'the Act') with a view to preventing the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the augmentation of foreign exchange and with a view to prevent him from engaging in keeping smuggled gold. The petitioner was communicated the grounds on the basis of which the detention order was made against him.

(2.) The grounds of detention are in the narrative frrm. It is stated that on the basis of secret information residential premises of the petitioner at Purana Laxman Mandir, Bharatpur (Rajasthan), and certain other premises were searched on 10-12-1986 by the officers of the Enforcement Directorate under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1973), Agra, in the presence of the officers of the Customs Department (under the Customs Act 1962). The petitioner was found present at his residential premises at Purana Laxman Mandir. One Mr. Manoj Kumar, stated to be the brother-in-law of the petitioner, was also found present at that time. The search was conducted in the presence of Panch witnesses, namely, Mr. Mohan Singh and Mr. Pramod Kumar. Both the petitioner and Manoj Kumar put their signatures on the search warrant in token of their having seen the same. The search led to the recovery of US $ 21,900 and primary gold weighing 6633.5 gms. It is stated that while the Panchnama was being prepared and the primary gold weighed, the petitioner quietly gave a slip to the authorities' and ran away. Certain documents were also found in the premises and seized. Manoj Kumar in his statement made on 10-12-1986 stated that the premises .searched were the residential premises of the petitioner and admitted recovery of the foreign exchange, primary gold and the documents and also the fact that the petitioner went out on the pretext of unnating and ran away after jumping the roof-top. Manoj Kumar also stated that he had come the previous day and stayed overnight at the afore- said residence of the petitioner. It was also admitted that the primary gold bore foreign markings. Statements of Panch witnesses were also recorded. Subsequently, Manoj Kumar retracted his statement. Summons were sent to the petitioner to appear before the Enforcement Officer but he could not be served. Summons were issued to him on 10-12-1986, 12-12-1986, 19-12-1986, 29-12-1986 & 19-1-1987. Service, however, could not be effected both by the notice server as well as by the postal authorities. Out of the documents seized from the residence of the petitioner there was one slip which appeared to contain certain account of transaction relating to sale/purchase of gold and foreign currency by the petitioner. The petitioner in spite of various opportunities did not appear before the authorities and his statement could not be recorded. Respondent No. 2 came to the conclusion that the petitioner had been indulging in unauthorised activities in violation of the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1973 and engaging in keeping smuggled gold. Satisfaction of the detaining authority was recorded and detention order dated 16-2-1987 made against the petitioner

(3.) The petitioner made representation against his detention. He addressed one such representation to the detaining authority and the other to the Central Govt. through Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi. Both the representation are dated 6-4-1987. The petitioner also sent a representation to the Advisory Board constitued under the Act which representation is dated 24-4-1987. The representations to the detaining authority as well as to the Secretary to the Government of India were rejected by two separate orders dated 4-5-1937. The Advisory Board held its sitting on 29-4-1987. The petitioner appeared before the Advisory Board with his counsel. The detention of the petitioner was confirmed by order dated 7-5-1987. It was mentioned therein that the case of the petitioner was placed before the Board who were of the opinion that there was sufficient cause for the. detention of the petitoner and that the Central Government having fully considered the report of the Advisory Board and the material on record, confirmed the detention of the petitioner under S.8(f) of the Act and the Central Government further directed that under S.10 of the said Act, the petitioner be detained for aperiod of one year from the date of detention. I may note that in pursuance to representation dated 6-4-1987 to the detaining authority the petitioner was supplied copies of various documents seized on 10-12-1986 from his residence at Parana Laxman Mandir, Bharatpur, and also from the residence of one Baldev Singh Karola.