SUBHASH CHANDER Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the validity of the detention order dated 29th July 1988 passed against Shri Subhash Chander detenu by Shri K. L. Venna, Joint Secretary to the Government of India, under section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short COFEPOSA). The order of detention was passed with a view to preventing the detenu from engaging in transporting smuggled goods and dealing in smuggled goods otherwise than by engaging in concealing or keeping smuggled goods.

(2.) This followed an incident dated 18th July 1988 when on an intelligence collected by the Economic Intelligence Bureau a raid was conducted on the house of one Ramesh Arya where the wife of Ramesh Arya was to deliver smuggled gold to the petitioner. On raiding the premises one K.G. of foreign marked gold was recovered from the possession of the petitioner to whom it had been delivered by Smt. Sunita wife of Ramesh Arya. The officers of the Intelligence Bureau also recovered 2450 U.S. dollars and Indian currency worth Rs. l,12,500.00 from the search of the house of Ramesh Arya. Another sum of Rs. 2,00,0001- in Indian currency was recovered from the business premises of Ramesh Arya. There were no documents for the legal acquisition of the foreign marked gold which was seized and the recovered currency was also seized in the belief that these were earnings from smuggled gold.

(3.) The order of detention is being assailed by Mr. Chawla, learned counsel for the detenu, on a number of grounds such as that some of the documents relied upon by the detaining authority have not been supplied to the detenu and even if deemed to have been supplied their misdescrption in the list of documents given to the detenu would show that there has; been non-application of mind to the material on which the detention is based. Secondly it is urged that there has been misreading of relied upon documents, thus showing non-application of mind with the result that nonexistent prejudicial material has been taken into consideration in arriving at subjective satisfaction. Thirdly, the validity of the detention is challenged on the ground that the representation of the detenu dated 25th of August 1988 has not been considered by the detaining authority, that is, the Central Government upto date.