SANTOSH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition in the nature of habeas corpus. The petitioner has been ordered to be detained under S. 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (hereinafter to be referred to as COFEPOSA) by an order of the State Government dt. 12th Nov. 1981. The order could, however, be served on the petitioner on 17th April, 1984 when he came to Delhi to attend his sister's marriage. The grounds of detention were served on him the same day. He made a representation as usual but the same was rejected and on the report of the Advisory Board having been received the State Government confirmed the detention and ordered the petitioner to be detained for one year from the date of his arrest.

(2.) The grounds of detention have been filed as Annexure-2 and contain two incidents on the basis of which the State Government felt satisfied that the petitioner was engaged in the abetment of smuggling and deserved to be detained in order to prevent from indulging in such activities. One of the grounds was that the Customs authorities arrested one Kirsane alias Lalman on 29th Mar. 1981 and recovered from his possession 150 wrist watches made in Japan valued at Rs. 60,000/-. In his statement recorded by the Customs authorities he disclosed that the aforesaid watches had been handed over to him by the petitioner for delivery at Kanpur and that he had deposited Rs. 25000/- as security with the petitioner whose identity he disclosed by naming him as Joshi Ji, proprietor, Vishal Bhandar Bhairawa, Nepal. A copy of the statement made by Lalman before the Customs authorities was also supplied to the detenu along with the grounds of detention. The second incident related to 16th Apr, 1981 when one Ram Kishan alias Rajendra Prasad of Gorakhpur was arrested when he got down from Vaishali Express at Lucknow station and on a search being taken of his person the Customs authorities recovered 300 foreign made watches. The said Ram Kishan in his statement copy whereof was also supplied to the detenu with the grounds of detention, stated that those watches had been handed over to him by the petitioner for being delivered at Kanpur and Lucknow. In his statement Ram Kishan described the petitioner as Joshi Ji, Proprietor of the shop named Vishal Fancy Store.

(3.) The petitioner's detention has been challenged on various grounds. It was firstly contended that the petitioner's identity has not been established by the statements of Lalman and Ram Kishen as they refer to some Joshi Ji, Proprietor, Vishal Bhandar in one case and Vishal Fancy Store in another, whereas the petitioner's name was Santosh Kumar and his alias name was 'Toshi' and not Joshi. It was argued that the papers establishing the identity of Joshi Ji with the petitioner, had not been supplied to the petitioner either with the grounds of detention or otherwise, and consequently the satisfaction, if any, of the State Government about the petitioner's being engaged in smuggling activities was without basis and the detention order deserves to be quashed.