BIMLA RANI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The detenu Bimla Rani petitioner herein has challenged the validity of the detention order dated 25th of March 1987 passed by Shri Tarun Roy, Joint Secretary to the Government of India, under section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act of 1974 (as amended). The detention order, was passed with a view to preventing the detenu from smuggling goods and is based on an incident dated 16th of February 19 when she was found smuggling 14 foreign marked gold bars each weighing 100 grams and one foreign made gold bit weighing 10 grams. The petitioner is a citizen of Singapore and was travelling from Singapore to Madras where she was caught by customs people in the process of smuggling gold. Mr. Pinaki, learned counsel for the petitioner, urged a number of grounds before me to press his point that the detention is vitiated and is unsustainable in law but it is not necessary for me to go into all the contentions as I find this petition will have to be allowed on the ground that there is no proximity between the incident and the detention order which has been essentially passed with a view to prevent the petitioner in indulging in a prejudicial activity, namely, smuggling of goods.

(2.) . Mr. Pinaki contended that the order of detention dated 25th of March 1987 is entirely based on the incident dated 16th of February 1986 and it has been passed after a lapse of almost 13 months and, therefore. it suffers from the vice of being, stale. Mr. Pinaki further contended that the detaining; authority has failed to put forward a satisfactory explanation as to why it failed to pass the detention order .for such a long time if the purpose really was to prevent the petitioner from indulging in prejudicial activities. According to him this vitiates the detention order as in the strict sense of the word this becomes a punitive detention which is not permissible.

(3.) . It would be seen that after her apprehension on 16th of February 1986 the petitioner was presented before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras on 17lh of February 1986 who remanded her to judicial custody till 3rd of March 1986. On 24th of February 1986 she was enlarged on bail on the condition that she will continue to report to the Assistant Collector at Madras. She reported on 25th, 26th and 27th of February 1986. Even during these days when the was available no detention order was passed. It seems, there- after the petitioner jumped bail and went back to Singapore on a fake passport and subsequently on a red alert she was arrested from Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi on 13th of March 1987 when she was found in possession of some foreign currency and Indian currency tor which adjudication proceedings were taken and she was there and then fined Rs. 5,000. It is in these circumstances that Mr. Pinaki contends that the incident dated 16th of February 1986 is too stale and cannot form the basis for preventive detention as the nexus between the incident and the need to resort to preventive detention is snapped.