INDRAVIJAYSINHJI MANUBHAI RANA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the brother of the detenu one Mahavirsinh Manubha Rana has challenged the order of detention of December 15 1976 purported to have been made by respondent No. 2 herein under sec. 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act 1974 (hereinafter known as COFEPOSA with a view to preventing him from engaging in keeping smuggled goods. A few facts need be noticed in order to understand the challenge made in this petition.

(2.) By an order of February 26 1976 the brother of the petitioner was detained under sec. 3 of the COFEPOSA with a view to prevent him from engaging in keeping the smuggled goods. This order was revoked by the State Government by its order of December 15 1976 and on the same day the impugned order was made. It is an admitted position that the grounds on which the revoked order of detention was made were the same on which the impugned order has been passed. The grounds broadly stated are as under:

(3.) On 19/20th January 1976 on information the Customs Officers of the Ahmedabad Division searched the godown of one Transport Company doing the business under the name and style of Metro Transport Corporation having its office at 3/10 Odhav Road Ahmedabad and seized 8 packages containing synthetic fabrics of foreign origin of the value of Rs. 1 5 900 under reasonable belief that they were smuggled goods and therefore liable to confiscation under the Customs Act 1962 These packages were found being concealed under a heap of grass bundles containing crockery. No markings regarding the consignor consignee and the description of the goods were found on these packages which were seized under a Panchnama in presence of one of the partners of the said Transport Corporation one Babubhai Patel and the clerk incharge of the godown one Amritlal Vithaldas Patel. This Amritlal Patel stated that the said packages were brought in the godown in the morning of January 19 1976 in a hand-lorry without any document. The hand-lorry man informed Amritlal that the packages were booked by his employer who was following him. In further statement which was recorded on January 22 1976 Amritlal stated that his previous statement was not correct and that the packages were brought to the godown by one Keshuji who happened to be in the employment of the said Transport Corporation and Keshuji had informed them that the papers in respect of the goods would be prepared by the office of the Corporation and Keshuji was instructed if any inquiry is made by the Government Officials in connection with the packages to plead his ignorance about the identity of the man who brought the goods. In the course of the further investigation the statement of Amritlal was corroborated by Babubhai Patel and Razakbhai Latifbhai Godil who happened to be partners in the said Transport Corporation and one Ramswarup Jaymangal Tivari who was a Mukadam in the service of the Transport Corporation aforesaid. As a result of interrogation of Keshuji the Customs Officers were taken to one orchard situated on Bavla-Dholka road from where these 8 pack- ages were loaded in the lorry and brought to the godown of the Transport Corporation at Odhav. Keshuji identified one Uka Mohan who was said to be present at the time when these packages were loaded in the lorry from the orchard. This orchard was also searched by the Customs Officers on 21/22nd January 1976 and in course of the search they seized four labels reading Nylon M-1470 made in Japan wrapped in a plastic bag from a cupboard in one of the rooms of the Vadi (orchard). These labels tallied with the labels found on the synthetic fabrics recovered on the packages seized from the godown of the Transport Corporation. Uka Mohan as well one Kana Jiva were also interrogated and they admitted in their statements recorded on January 27 1976 that they were employed by the detenu in the orchard and were responsible for looking after the orchard in the absence of the detenu. It was further disclosed from their statements that the detenu and his family stayed in the said orchard but had gone to village Sauka about 6 to 7 days before their statements were recorded to attend the marriage of his brother. They also stated that 27 packages concealed below about 100 cement like bags were brought and were loaded from the orchard in presence of the detenu and one Babubhai Patel had contacted him for this purpose on the day earlier to the receipt of the goods in the orchard. Uka Mohan has further stated that out of 27 packages 8 were removed in truck in the noon of January 18 1976 He also identified Keshuji as the person who had come with the truck in the noon on January 19 1976 for loading the said 8 packages. In the course of follow-up inquiry at Bombay it was disclosed from the statements of Humayu and Mohmad Ismail Jan Mohmad that these 30 packages of crank shafts and 27 packages of contraband synthetic fabrics were brought in the orchard of the detenu and concealed under the cement like bags of chalk powder and deposited in the orchard of the detenu in his presence with his full knowledge and connivance. On these grounds the detaining authority respondent No. 2 was satisfied that the detenu should be detained so as to prevent him from engaging himself in future in keeping the smuggled goods. This order is sought to be challenged on the following grounds at the time of hearing by Mr. C. T. Daru learned Advocate for the petitioner: ... ... ... . . ... ...