POONAM RAJEEV PATHAK Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed by the wife of the detenu. The detenu being Rajeev M. Pathak. The detention order is dated 16-8-2000 as per Annexure A of the petition and grounds of detention are of even date as per Annexure B. He is detained under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short "cofeposa Act" ).

(2.) WE have heard Mr. Keswani for the detenu and Mr. R. M. Agarwal for Union of India-respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

(3.) THE facts and the background in which the detention order came to be passed in short are as under: An intelligence was received by the Officers of Directorate of Vigilance, Mumbai, indicating that certain persons/firms were misusing DEPB Scheme by manipulating/forging the particulars of the shipping bills and obtaining DEPB benefits therefrom. Initially those firms were M/s. Samarth Enterprises, M/s. Sharp Medicals, M/s. Pragati Sales Corporation, all from Dombivali. These premises were searched and it was revealed that one firm known as Knomo Exports Ltd. (name later changed to M/s. KEL Exports Ltd. located at 130-132, Greater Western Building, S. B. Singh Marg, Mumbai, was also related to these exports. Further investigations revealed that the detenu was full and sole in charge of this Knomo Exports Ltd. and he had by forging and fabricating 127 shippings bills committed fraud and loss to the exchequer. Those 127 shipping bills were tendered to different authorities. Forgery of shipping bills was in respect of description, value, quantity of the exported goods and also in respect of signatures of concerned officers. It was also transpired during investigation that the detenu had been successful in getting advance remittance of Rs. 110 crores from Dubai and this advance remittance was siphoned away by the detenu within 4-5- days in the names of persons who had no concern with the business, but all of whose addresses were shown as the address of the detenu. Detailed probe and through investigation was made and thereafter proposal was sent by the Sponsoring Authority for detention of the detenu in respect of 127 shipping bills and the forgery or fraud committed regarding thereto, and consequently the detention order came to be passed against the detenu.