HIRA LAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been brought under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking quashment of detention order dated January 19, 1988 passed by respondent No. 2 under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short 'COFEPOSA Act') and declaration dated February 4, 1988, issued under Section 9(1) of COFEPOSA Act.

(2.) ON October 15, 1987, the petitioner was arrested alongwith other co - detenu and a recovery of contraband gold biscuits of foreign origin weighing 25, 663 kgs. valued at Rs. 79 lakhs was effected from a Maruti Car at the instance of the petitioner and the said contraband gold was seized. Detention orders have been made against S/Shri Sat Pal Bhandari, Ravinder Kumar Bhandari, Puran Singh and the present petitioner.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, made reference to Criminal Writ No. 294/88, Ravinder Kumar Bhandari v. Union of India and Others, decided on November, 30, 1988, by H.C. Goel, J. in respect of the writ petition brought by a co-detenu in which a similar point was raised and the detention of the co-detenu had been quashed on the ground that the grounds of detention have not been prepared and approved on the date the detention order had been made. The learned counsel for the petitioner has made reference to Criminal Writ No. 244/85, Shivdev Singh v. Delhi Admn. decided on December 6, 1985, wherein a Division Bench of this Court has laid down the law that if on similar point a detention order of a co-detenu stands quashed, the detention order of the other detenu also cannot be sustained. One of the points raised in the aforesaid case was regarding the delay made in passing the detention order which stood unexplained in the case of co-detenu and the detention of the co-detenu stood quashed. It was held by the Division Bench that the judgment given in the case of co-detenu served as a precedent for quashing the detention of the other detenu in which a similar point was raised and it was held that the authority cannot be now permitted to refer to any other facts to justify the delay.