ROBERT THURSEB Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order of detention dated 19-4-1977 passed by the Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department, under the provisions of section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. The petitioner is a Belguim national and was found carrying diamonds on his person at the time of his search at the Bombay airport on the morning of 22-3-1977. The diamonds were valued at Rs. 6,92,259/- and they were seized under the Customs Act, 1962 by the Customs authorities. It also further appears that on interrogation by the Customs Officers, the petitioner made statements on 22nd, 23rd and 31st March, 1977 under section 108 of the Customs Act, in which he admitted that he had delivered diamonds, also on previous trips to a Bombay party. He was a carrier of diamonds since 1970 and he used to carry diamonds to Italy in 1975 for which he received commission. He was then offered a job for carrying diamonds to India and was promised commission for such carriage. He also admitted that the diamonds which were seized from him on 22-3-1977 were carried by him for the same party in Bombay. He identified the said party as one Nanalal Laxmichand Javeri from his photograph and when he was taken to the residence of the said Nanalal, he identified him as the very same Nanalal in the presence of panchas, on 23-3-1977. He was thereafter arrested at 10.00 p.m. on 23-3-1977 and produced before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bombay, on the next day i.e. 24-3-1977. The learned Magistrate ordered him to be released on cash bail of Rs. 1,50,000/- of which he availed on 10-4-1977. The prosecution launched against the petitioner is pending in the Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bombay. While the prosecution was still pending, the impugned order of the detention came to be passed.

(2.) The petitioner seeks to challenge the order of detention on the following grounds :---

(3.) We find that there is no substance in any of these contentions. As regards the first contention, Mr. Bhatt the learned Counsel for the petitioner, pointed out that in paragraph 29 of the return, the Detaining Authority has stated that there were other basic facts or materials apart from the admissions made by the petitioner which had a reasonable influence on his decision to pass the order. Relying on this statement, Mr. Bhatt contended that this shows that the order was passed on the basis of facts and materials which were not disclosed in the order. Now, it is not disputed that the order mentions that the entries in the passport of the petitioner shows that the petitioner had made two earlier trips. The order also states that the petitioner had in the presence of two witnesses identified the said Nanalal Laxmichand Javeri, a party in Bombay for whom the diamonds were allegedly carried by the petitioner. In addition, the fact that diamonds worth Rs. 6,92,259/- were found concealed on the person of the petitioner has also been stated in the order. These are facts which are apart from those disclosed in the admissions made by the petitioner, and when the Detaining Authority referred to the facts and materials apart from the admissions, there can be no doubt that the authority was referring to these facts. The same having been disclosed in the order, we are unable to understand the argument that the Detaining Authority had passed the order on the basis of facts which were not communicated in the order to the petitioner. It must further be noted that in the very same paragraph, the sentence which follows the sentence of which Mr. Bhatt tried to take advantage, states in categorical terms that the Detaining Authority has mentioned all the material facts which were taken into consideration, at the time of supplying grounds of detention. We therefore, see no force in this submission.