LAWS(GJH)-1999-4-30

HARISHCHANDRA AMARSINH JADEJA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

Decided On April 07, 1999
HARISHCHANDRA AMARSINH JADEJA Appellant
V/S
State of Gujarat And Anr. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions involving common questions of law and almost identical questions of fact are proposed to be disposed of by a common order.

(2.) The two petitioners in two petitions are real brothers. An order for their detention was passed by the detaining Authority under the provision of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short "COFEPOSA"). The said order could not be served on the petitioners till date. The period of five years has elapsed. Now the petitioners chose to file these writ petitions in the year 1998 challenging the aforesaid order with prayers that the said order be quashed and the respondents be restrained permanently from executing the order passed by the respondent No.2 against the petitioners.

(3.) Brief facts essential for disposal of these two petitions are as under : On 14.2.1993 on the basis of specific intelligence information given by the Police of Bhuj-Kutch District that two trucks bearing No.GJ-12-T-7401 AND GJ-12-T-7296 were to carry contraband silver from Kutch to Mumbai by road, in the early hours of 14.2.1993 both trucks were intercepted at the check post by the Custom Authorities near Ramdevpir Temple, Nr. village Smakhiali in Kutch district. Six persons occupying the trucks were apprehended. On preliminary investigation it was found that the trucks were carrying salt bags and beneath the salt bags silver slabs were concealed. 135 silver slabs, 200 salt bags and Indian currency notes worth Rs.9100.00 were recovered from one truck and 140 silver slabs and 200 bags of salt and Indian currency note worth Rs.9000.00 were recovered from other truck. Thus in all 275 silver slabs worth Rs.5,86,06,620.00 were seized besides Indian currency aforesaid and salt bags. The detention order was passed on 17.3.1994 against 11 persons. Nine persons were actually detained at the relevant time, but the petitioner and his brother absconded and till date they could not be apprehended nor served with the order of detention.