SUBHASH CHANDRA BHANDARI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING detained in pursuance to the order F.No. 673/9/92 -Cus -VIH dated 2.1.1992, passed by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the petitioner detenu through his wife Smt. Bharati Bhandari resident of Indore has assailed the aforesaid order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus for restoration of his liberty.

(2.) ADUMBERATED in brief, the facts relevant to this petition are that the petitioner (detenu) had negotiated with one Rameshbhai to transport the goods from Indore to Delhi in his jeep on Rs. 3,000/ -per trip as hire charges. The aforesaid jeep No. MP -89A -9007 was intercepted on Delhi -Mathura road at about 16.00 hours on 16.12.1991, and 27 slabs of silver packed in gunny bags were recovered from a secret cavity on the floor of the rear of the said jeep. These silver slabs were seized on the reasonable belief that the same were liable to be confiscated under the Customs Act, 1962. The detenu is alleged to have voluntarily made statement on 16.12.1991 under Section 108 of the Customs Act through which he seems to have admitted his role in the transportation of the aforesaid contraband silver. A case was also registered against the detenu under the Customs Act and he was arrested under the offence punishable under that Act. No bail application was filed by the detenu. Investigation in the aforesaid criminal case was in progress and adjudication proceedings under the Customs Act, 1962 as also under other laws for the time being in force were likely to be initiated against the detenu. On the basis of the materials collected till then, the aforesaid authority passed the order of detention under Section 3(1) of the Act with a view to preventing the detenu from transporting the smuggled goods in future. The detenu is in custody on the strength of the aforesaid order dated 2.1.1992. He was also informed that he is entitled to make representation as permitted by the law. The detenu has payed for quashment of the aforesaid order dated 2.1.1992. The respondents have filed the return which is on record.

(3.) RIGHT at the threshold we may recall what Addison had said about liberty: 'when liberty is gone, life grows insipid and has lost its relish.' Article 21 of the Constitution very aptly mandated that no one shall be deprived of this personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. Article 22(5) required that the authority shall afford earliest opportunity of making the representation. It is thus imperative that procedural safeguards have to be scrupulously adhered to so that life may not be condemned to lose its relish illegally. The role of the Court, as sentinel of liberty thus springs into action.