DEEPAK G MELWANI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two writ petitions arise out of the detention orders passed on 3-2-1997 against the petitioners by the second respondent under section 3 (1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. The said orders came to be passed in the event of unearthing of a big haul of fraud on the provisions of F. E. R. A. and an amount of Rs. 469 crores have been siphoned out of the country in clandestine operations. In this Hawala racket, 14 persons were involved and they had conspired together in an organised manner and transacted the Hawala business whereby tried to weaken the Indian Foreign Exchange Reserves.

(2.) IT is stated in the grounds of detention that as per the reliable information received by the Enforcement Directorate, Bombay, it came to light that certain persons by name Dilip Doshi, Dinesh Bhuva, Harshad P. Mehta with the active assistance of the persons such as Yogesh Mehta, Deepak Melwani (Petition No. 254 of 1998 ). Ramesh Nahar (petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1186 of 1998 ). Mahendra Sanklecha, Hemant Barot, Sanjay Udeshi, Dhankumar Shah, Nilesh Trivedi and certain Bank Officials of South Indian Bank, Nariman Point Branch, U. C. O. Bank, D. N. Road, Mumbai and also certain other nationalized and scheduled banks in Mumbai opened fictitious bank accounts and remittance against bogus imports were sent abroad through such bank accounts against forged documents. The role of the petitioners in this organized economical crime was that they were supplying necessary finance for remittance to the bogus bank accounts and receiving commission. Therefore, they were found to be the cogent and live link for committing organized violation of F. E. R. A. and making money by illegal means jeopardizing the balance of trade and weaken the foreign exchange reserve of the country. The role of detenus involved in the two petitions in this transactions is similar and this two Habeas Corpus petition are grounded on identical grounds. We therefore, propose to dispose of the above two writ petitions by this common judgment.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Maqsood Khan relied on the facts and documents filed in writ petition No. 254 of 1998 for the purpose of his argument. As the facts are similar and identical we refer to those facts and documents for the purpose of this common judgment.