NARESH KUMAR Vs. ADMINISTRATOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The detenu, Naresh Kumar was detained by an order dated 11th March, 1986 passed by the administrator. Union territory of Delhi in exercise of the powers conferred upon the administrator under Section 3(1) read with Section 2 (f) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. The detention was with a view to preventing the detenu from abetting the sniuggling of goods.

(2.) The allegations as detailed in the grounds of detention are that on 22/6/1985 gold was recovered from the television brought by one Ravinder Kumar from Singapore. The gold constitutes of 20 foreign made gold biscuits of 10 tolas each and was recovered from the said Ravinder Kumar while he was passing through the red channel in the customs department. On investigation the customs authorities were informed by him that it was one Naresh Kumar (the present detenu) who introduced him to one Kultar Singh whose brother Kulraj Singh is based in Singapore. According to him, Kultar Singh used to send persons to Singapore to get into contact with his brother Kulraj Singh to smuggle goods into India. The smuggling, according to him, was done by Kultar Singh. Kultar Singh on examination confirmed the testimony of Ravinder Kumar but when the present detenu was examined he made a statement that he used to introduce persons to Kultar Singh for a consideration of Rs. 300.00 . The detenu, however, is involved in the case because of the statement of Kultar Singh that he used to share the profits with the present detenu.

(3.) The incident is dated 26/6/1985. The order of detention in this case was passed on 11/3/1986. The detention order was actually executed on 13/10/1986 and declaration under Section 9 was made on 11/11/1986. The primary contention of Mr. Trilok Kumar is that there has been an undue, inordinate and unexplained delay first in passing the detention order and then in the execution thereof and that is sufficient to vitiate the order of detention. This averment has been raised in the grounds Nos. 4 and 5 of.the petition and this has been explained by the respondents in their counter-affidavit by staling as follows :-