LI GALINA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by three petitioners, namely, Ms.Li Galina, Ms.Sakirova Elmira and Ms.Ismailova Gulbahar challenging their preventive detention under the provisions of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short `the Act'). Briefly, the facts are these:

(2.) The Lt.Governor of the National Capital Territory of Delhi, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3(1) of the Act, in terms of the order of detention dated 8th November, 1996 directed the detention of the petitioners with a view to prevent them from smuggling goods. The facts and material on the basis of which the detention order was made have been noticed in detail in the grounds on which the detention order has been made and for the present purposes, it is not necessary to notice the said facts. Suffice it to say that on the basis of the material placed on record the Lt.Governor arrived at a subjective satisfaction that the petitioners have the inclination and propensity for indulging in smuggling activities in an organised and clandestine manner and unless prevented they are likely to indulge in the smuggling activities in future. After noticing that the prosecution proceedings under the Customs Act, 1962 have been initiated against them and adjudication proceedings are likely to be initiated and they are still in judicial custody and their passports are with the Customs Department, on facts, the Lt.Governor has come to the conclusion that they are likely to travel abroad clandestinely for the purpose of smuggling and, therefore, the Lt.Governor, on being satisfied that it is necessary to detain them under the provisions of the Act with a view to preventing them from smuggling goods in future, has made the detention order in respect of each of the petitioners. In respect of each of the petitioners, a Declaration under Section 9(1) of the Act has also been made on 11th December, 1996 by the Additional Secretary to the Government of India. The order of detention and declaration under Section 9(1) are being challenged by the petitioners.

(3.) It has come to light that petitioners No. 1 Ms.Li Galina after the expiry of parole period has not surrendered and is absconding. Mr. Herjinder Singh states that he has no instructions from Ms.Li Galina. In this view, the petition insofar as it concerns Li Galina is dismissed.