SHANTADEVI MANGILAL JAIN Vs. K.L.VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order of detention dated 17th October, 1996 passed by the respondent No.1, Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, directing the detention of the petitioner's husband Mangilal Bherumal Jain @ Bhaya (hereinafter referred to as "the detenu") under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 ("the Act", for short) with a view to preventing the detenu in future from acting in any manner prejudicial to the augmentation of foreign exchange. The order of detention along with the grounds of detention and the documents relied upon by the detaining authority were served on the detenu on 6th January, 1997.

(2.) THE grounds of detention are annexed at Exhibit "R" to the petition. It is stated in the grounds of detention that on 9th November, 1995 reliable information received in the office of the Enforcement Directorate, Mumbai revealed that one Devendra Mehta of M/s. Maxcom Electronics has been illegally receiving and making payments in India on instructions of a person resident abroad and also transferring funds through the detenu. The information revealed that as per instructions of Devendra Mehta, the detenu was likely to collect a sum of Rs.20 lakhs from M/s.Natwar Chunni Angadia, Mumbai-2 against Rs.5/- note numbered 78 R 637913 for transferring the same to Dubai on behalf of Devendra Mehta who was to give necessary details in that regard to the detenu at his shop at about 7.00 p.m. on the same day. Pursuant to this information, the officers of the Enforcement Directorate raided various premises including that of Devendra Mehta and the detenu and seized certain foreign as well as Indian currencies along with some incriminating documents including one five rupee note bearing No.78 R 637913. The officers of the Enforcement Directorate recorded statements of Devendra Mehta on 9th and 10th of November, 1995 wherein he admitted to have entered into several havala transactions through the detenu as well as some other persons. It was also admitted by Devendra Mehta that at the instance of certain persons in Dubai, he had sent foreign currencies to Dubai through the detenu on as many as five occasions. The total amount involved in these five transactions was US $ 2,56,500/- (Rs.95,29,425/-). The officers of the Enforcement Directorate also recorded the statement of one Navin Patel, who was working as Manager of M/s.Natwarlal Chinubhai Angadia, who has also given elaborate information about the havala transactions carried by Devendra Mehta with the help of the detenu. On the basis of these statements, Navin Patel, Devendra Mehta and one Ashok Jain were arrested on 10th November, 1995 and 11th November, 1995, respectively by the Chief Enforcement Officer, Mumbai and all of them were produced before Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai on 11th November, 1995 who was pleased to remand all them 14th November, 1995 and on the same day all the three were released on bail with certain conditions. The Enforcement Directorate also carried raids on the business premises of one Jayesh Mehta, who has also confessed of having havala transactions through the detenu. The detenu was arrested on 27th March, 1996. The statement of the detenu was recorded by the officers of the Enforcement Directorate wherein he confirmed that he had illegally sent abroad foreign currencies five times in 1996 and once in 1997. The detenu was arrested on 27th March, 1996 along with certain other person including Jaikishan alias Jackie and was produced before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai on 28th March, 1996 and was released on bail on 11th April, 1996. The Enforcement Directorate also recorded the statements of certain others persons. It is, however, not necessary to deal with those statements but suffice it to say that on the basis of the above mentioned material, the detaining authority recorded his satisfaction that these unauthorised transactions indulged in by the detenu have affected the foreign exchange resources of the country adversely and unless detained the detenu is likely to continue to engage in prejudicial activities in future and therefore it is necessary to detain the detenu under the provisions of the Act with a view to preventing the detenu in future from acting in any manner prejudicial to the augmentation of foreign exchange.

(3.) IN reply to ground 4(i), Mr.Somnath Pal, Joint Secretary (COFEPOSA) has stated in his affidavit in-reply as follows :