JITENDER KUMAR AGGARWAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner through the present petition seeks quashment of the detention order dated March 5,1997 (Annexure 'A') and for issue of a writ of habeas corpus for a direction to the respondents to set his son at liberty forth with known as Jitender Kumar Aggarwal.

(2.) Relevant brief facts giving rise to the prosecution of the present petition are as under : that the petitioner herein is the father of the detenu Jitender Kumar Aggarwal. His son was detained in pursuance of the detention order dated March. 5,1997 passed by Shn K.L. Verma, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, respondent No. 2 (vide Annexure 'A'), on the allegations contained in the grounds of detention served upon the detenu (Annexures B & Bl). According to the grounds of detention, one Satish Kumar was apprehended at Khanna (Punjab). His person was searched which resulted in the seizure of Indian Currency to the tune of Rs. 3.50 lacs alongwith certain documents which led to the investigation by the police. It was revealed by him in his statement during the interrogation that the said currency was given to him by one Satish Kumar i.e. the detenu. On search of the premises in occupation of the detenu on May 25, 1996 by the officers of the Enforcement Directorate (FERA), Rs. 31.80 lacs alongwith certain documents were seized from his house. The detenu in his statement stated that the seized currency was delivered to him by some unknown person under instructions of his nephew i.e. Shri Sandeep from Hong Kong and he had as yet not received any instructions from him about the seized currency. He further stated that he had been receiving Indian Currency from different persons on the instructions of said Sandeep and had been delivering the same as per his instructions to different persons. He was being paid Rs. 10,000.00 per mensem as remuneration for the same. Consequently the Detaining Authority was of the view in view of the above that the detenu had been engaged in unauthorised transactions in violation of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 and thus with a view to preventing the detenu from acting in a manner prejudicial to the augmentation of the country's foreign exchange reserves it was necessary to put the detenu under detention. Therefore, the detenu was arrested on May 25, 1996 and was produced before the concerned Court on May 26, 1996. However, since the charge-sheet could not be filed within the statutory period the detenu was released on bail.

(3.) The abovesaid detention order is bad in law on account of an inordinate delay in passing of the same. The purported purpose of detention was punitive instead of preventive. There is an infraction of a constitutional and statutory safeguards inasmuch as all the relied upon documents have not been supplied pan passu grounds of detention. The grounds of detention reflect unawareness of relevant material which was neither placed before nor considered by the Detaining Authority. Hence it vitiated the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority. There is non application of mind in consideration of certain extraneous material in the matter of detention which had vitiated the subjective satisfaction. The representation dated May 8, 1997 to the Detaining Authority through the Superintendent Jail was to be considered by all the Competent Authorities as per the request made therein. The said representation was accordingly rejected by the Central Government and by Detaining Authority on August 1,1997. Thus there has been a long and inordinate delay on the part of the Detaining Authority and the Central Government in consideration of the said representation which is in clear violation of the provisions of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. Hence the impugned detention order and the continued detention are liable to be quashed.