KRISHNA CHAUDHARY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition challenges the detention order dated 11th February, 1999 passed by respondent No. 2 against the petitioner under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short 'the Act').

(2.) Facts which led to the making of the said detention order are these. On 29th July, 1998 the petidoner was intercepted when he arrived from Kathmandu and was awaiting in the transit hall of IGI Airport for his flight to Dubai. As a result of the personal search and that of his baggage foreign and Indian currency collectively valued at Rs. 17,44,380.00 was allegedly recovered from him. Petitioner is alleged to have voluntarily made statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 admitting the recovery of the said currency from his possession. Thereafter on 29th July, 1998 petitioner was remanded to judicial custody by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, and the remand period is being extended from time to time. Detention order in question was thereafter passed on 11th February, 1999 while he was in custody. Representation of the petitioner dated 18th February, 1999 for revocation of the said detention order was rejected by respondent No. I on 19th March, 1999 while by respondent No. 2 on 11th March, 1999. Petitioner alleges that he did not receive any reply to his another representation dated 24th March, 1999 made to the respondents.

(3.) Only submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner before us was that in the representation dated 24 March, 1999 addressed to the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), which was based on grounds different from those taken in the representation dated 18th February 1999, it was specifically stated that a copy thereof may also be forwarded to the Detaining Authority (respondent No. 2) for consideration. However, from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 it is manifest that the said representation dated 24th March, 1999 was rejected by the Detaining Authority on 29th April, 1999 and, therefore, was delay of more than a month in disposing of that representation and the detention order in question thus deserves to be quashed on that ground alone. In support of the submission reliance was placed on the decisions in Criminal Writ Petition No. 787/98 Mohd. Abdullahi YMSuf V. Union of India & Ors., decided by this Court on 9th December 1998 and ShakilAhmcd Ansari v. Union of India & Ors., 1996 II AD (Delhi) 613=63 (1996) DLT 274 (DB).