SAEED ALI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The pictiucier is aggrieved of the detention pursuant to the detention order dated 1st of March 1988 passed under section 3(1) read with section 2(f) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, by the Delhi Administration. The detension order was passed with a view to preventing the detenu from smuggling goods, namely, foreign currency out of India.

(2.) This followed an incident dated 6th of November 1987 when the petitioner was about to board a flight British Airways Flight No. 146 and was to land at Kuwait. On presenting himself for customs clearance he was found carrying US $ 50,780, Kuwait Dinnar 115 and UAE Dirham 10. The detenu-petitioner failed to produce any evidence about his being in lawful possession of this foreign currency. The matter was investigated and it was found that the petitioner-detenu was smuggling this foreign currency out of India.

(3.) The petitioner-detenu was arrested on the same date, but was granted bail on 20th of November 1987. Admittedly. the petitioner-detenu along with his family is settled at Kuwait. In these circumstances, he made an application to the court of the A.C.M.M. New Delhi for grant of permission to go abroad and see his family members. This permission was not granted and by an order dated 13th of January 1988 the prayer was declined. On 18th of January 1988, the petitioner made an. application to the learned A.C.M.M. to the effect that his bail be cancelled and his surety be discharged and his case be taken for trial at the earliest. Admittedly, therefore, on the day when the detention order was pasted the detenu-petitioner was in judicial custody. This fact was taken notice of by the detaining authority as is disclosed by the grounds of detention, but there is no further mention in the ground of detention that the detaining authority still found it necessary muchless a compelling necessity to detain the petitioner with a view to preventing him from indulging in any future prejudicial activity. Mr. Arora, representing the pitUioner-detenu, therefore urged that the detention order is vitiated on this ground as the detaining authority has not spelt out the compelling necessity tor detaining the petitioner under these circumstances and that even if it was expiessly stated by the detaining authority it is not based on any material.