CITANJALI RAVI SAMBHWANI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed under Article 226 of the constitution of india, challenging the legality and correctness of the order of detention dated 15th May, 1990, issued by the 2nd Respondent - Joint Secretary to the Government of India, in exercise of powers under Section 3 (1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling activities Act, 1974 as amended, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). Petitioner, in this writ petition, claims to be sister-in-law of one Ashok Sambhwani, who has been detained pursuant to the aforesaid order of detention.

(2.) THE 2nd Respondent, on being subjectively satisfied that the activities of the detenu are prejudicial under the Act and with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the augmentation of the foreign exchange, it is necessary to issue the order of detention.

(3.) NO dispute is raised before us as regards the service of the order of detention, grounds of detention and the material relied upon by the Detaining Authority on the detenu. The grounds of detention are Annexure B. It is stated inter alia in the grounds of detention that on the basis of the information received by the Enforcement Directorate, Bombay, that the detenu has been arranging import of cars from abroad through non-resident Indians returning to India on Transfer of Residence basis and for the purpose of purchasing the cars the detenu has been acquiring huge amount of foreign exchange abroad and that after importing the cars the detenu has been selling the same in India on huge profits. The residential as well as business premises of the detenu were searched on 4-12-1989 under Section 37 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'fera' ). The said search resulted in seizure of documents and foreign exchange 550 U. S. Dollars. The detenu's statements came to be recorded under Section 40 of the FERA on 4-12-1989 and 5-12-1989. The Detaining Authority, in the grounds of detention in para 3. 1 has incorporated the statement of the detenu as under :