SANJAY KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Sanjay Kumar, came to be detained by an order dated 19/2/1986 passed by ShriM.L.Wadhawan, Additional Secretary to the Government of India under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (as amended). The detention order was passed with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the augmentation of foreign exchange. Be it noted that this detention order was actually executed on 7/5/1986 and even though it was passed on 19/2/1986, it was actually passed on to the District authorities at Hoshiarpur for execution on 19/3/1986. The detention order was passed on the basis of an incident dated 1/12/1985.

(2.) It is not necessary for me to refer to the detailed grounds of detention. Suffice is to say that on the basis of secret information, the officers of the Enforcement Directorate Jallandhar intercepted detenu along with his sister, a co-detenu namely Smt. Veena Rani and allegedly recovered from their possession a sum of Rs. 1,100.00 Indian currency and foreign exchange of various countries. In the grounds of detention it is detailed that both thesKe detenus were brought down from the railway wagons along with their luggage and on opening the suit case Rs. 1,100.00 were recovered and thereafter a false bottom was discovered in the attache case and on opening the same the foreign exchange was recovered. I must at once point out that this particular narration in the grounds of detention is not correct After recovery a panchnama in respect of seizure was drawn and a copy of this panchnama was made available to the detenu. In this panchnama it is specifically stated :

(3.) In any case be that what it is, though this is one of the important reasons which vitiates the satisfaction of the detaining authority, there is one important aspect to this case. Mr. Trilok Kumar while arguing the case on behalf of the petitioner has raised a number of points but it is not necessary for me to examine all as after giving my anxious consideration to the facts of the case I find that this petition can safely be decided on consideration of single point. This is in respect of the delay in passing of the detention order and the execution thereof. But before I deal with that I must make reference to what Mr. Trilok Kumar has stated at the bar. The alleged story of the sponsoring authority is that the petitioner along with his sister Veena Rani were caught in possession of the foreign exchange and on recording their statements they are supposed to have informed the authorities concerned that this foreign exchange was given to him by one Kirnti LaIJain and that he was delivering it to one Chhabra of Delhi. Kirnti Lal Jain was also detained according to Mr. Trilok Kumar and was released by the Advisory Board. It transpried during the proceedings of the Advisory Board that one Ramesh Kumar was also involved as it was alleged by Kirnti Lal that it was actually one Ramesh Kumar who used to hand over foreign exchange to him and in turn he used to hand it over to the petitioner for carrying it to one Chhabra of Delhi. This Ramesh Kumar was not detained. His statement was allegedly record and according to Mr. Trilok Kumar this statement was. not produced before the detaining authority. In any case lam not concerned with it because it is stated that he had denied any connection with the incident. Mr. Trilok Kumar states that this is very relevant but I am not going into this contention. It may or may not be relevant.