OM PRAKASH MAHENDRU Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges his detention vide order of detention dated 9th March, 1988 passed by Shri K.L. Verma (respondent No. 2), Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi, as an officer specially empowered in this behalf under section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA Act in short) and seeks a writ of habeas corpus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for his immediate release by quashing the aforesaid order.

(2.) The facts in so far as they are relevant for the disposal of this writ petition reveal that as a sequal to interception of a truck No. HRU-1357 on 23rd February, 1988 near the crossing of Ring Road and Rohtak Road, New Delhi, recovery of 480 gold biscuits of 10 tolas each allegedly brought from Amritsar to Delhi for delivery to the petitioner; search of premises at 113, Ekjot Group Housing Society, Pitampura, New Delhi, allegedly belonging to the petitioner, was conducted and petitioner taken into custody. It is further alleged that earlier the driver and cleaner of the truck had named the petitioner as the person who was expected to take delivery of the seized gold and that another person named was Jagjit Singh @ Jagga, who had managed to escape when the search of the house of the petitioner was being conducted in his presence and his servant Mahesh Kumar, whereas two other persons who happened to visit the house while the search was in progress, namely, Gurdeep Singh @ Sarpanch @ Bhau and Hardalal Singh were overpowered and apprehended at the same time.

(3.) While the petitioner was in custody, this order of detention was served upon him on the ground that the detaining authority felt satisfied that his detention was necessitated with a view to prevent him from engaging in transporting smuggled gold and dealing in smuggled goods otherwise then by engaging in concealing or keeping smuggled goods. Documents, 69 in number, as detailed in the list of documents, annexed with the grounds of detention, were also supplied to the petitioner.