DARSHAN SINGH ALIAS FAUZI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition the petitioner has challenged the order of detention dated 4.11.1996 passed under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short the Act), with a view to preventing him from engaging in transporting smuggled g(xids in future.

(2.) It is alleged that on 17.5.1996 on specific information the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Delhi Zonal Unit intercepted a truckat Wazirabad Village, Delhi; the petitioner,driverof the truck, one A jay Kumar Arora and Munni La I were found present there; all of them were brought to the office of the Directorate alongwith the truckat Lodhi Estate, New Delhi, and the search of the same resulted into recovery of 353 packages containing articles of foreign origin, valued at about Rs. 78,16,225.00 lakhs; they were interrogated and their statements were recorded. On 19th May, 1996 the petitioner was arrested and produced before the Court and was sent to the judicial custody; on 20th July, 1996 he was ordered to be released on bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure as no complaint was filed by the department within the statutory period; on 11th November, 1996 impugned detention order was passed by respondent No. 2 and in pursuance of the same the petitioner was detained on 9th December, 1998 while he was in judicial custody in Central Jail, Tihar, Delhi. In reply affidavit the averments which did not form part of record were denied.

(3.) Mr. Naveen Malhotra, learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that (i) the order of detention dated 4th November, 1996 was passed under Section 3(1) of the Act and the same was executed on 26th December, 1998; there was thus an inordinate and unexplained delay of more than two years in the execution of the detention order and the live and proximate link between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention stood snapped; (ii) no fresh satisfaction was recorded by the Detaining Authority to the effect that there was compelling necessity justifying the detention despite the fact that the detenu was already in judicial custody before service of the detention order and in the alternative if there was any such satisfaction the same was not communicated to the detenu alongwith the grounds of detention as it would constitute a fresh ground; (iii) on the representation of the petitioner dated 26th December, 1998 there was no need for calling the comments from the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence and there was delay in consideration of his representation; (iv) comments on the representation of the petitioner were not called by the Competent Authority.