DARSHAN LAL VOHRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The detenu Vinod Kumar Vohra, a permanent resident of New Delhi, stated to be engaged in road transport business, arrived at Calcutta Airport on 16th of February, 1987 from Hongkong via Bangkok through Thai International Airliner, when he was arrested by the Customs Authorities on the ground that gold bars were found from his possession, i.e. secreted in his rectum. He was produced on the very next day before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barasat, and was remanded to jail custody. On 27th February, 1987 a bail application was moved on his behalf before the Chief Judicial Magistrate which was rejected. Being aggrieved by such order on 27th of February, 1987 an application was moved before the High Court which was rejected. Again on 4th of March, 1987 an application was moved before the Chief Judicial Magistrate for bail, which was rejected. Again being dissatisfied with such order dated 4th March, 1987 an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was moved before the High Court on 18th March, 1987 whereupon the Division Bench presided over by Mr. Justice Monoj Kumar Mukherjee granted bail in favour of detenu on 20th of March, 1987.

(2.) Shri Tarun Roy, the Joint Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 directed that the detenu be detained and kept in safe custody at Dum Dum Central Jail with a view to prevent him from smuggling goods. The said order together with the grounds was served on the detenu on 31 st March, 1987. From the detenu's possession eight gold bars of ten tolas each of 999 purity was recovered. The detenu also made a statement before the Customs Officer admitting the recovery of such gold bars from his person and having taken with him US $ 12,200 and Rs. 3,000/- in Indian currency when he left Delhi for Hongkong. The detenu contended that he arrived at the Calcutta Airport from Hongkong via Bangkok on 16th of February, 1987 by Thai International Airways, carrying only miscellaneous goods, i.e. textiles, shoe, etc. He filled in the Red Channel Declaration Form declaring the articles brought by him and only after thorough check and payment of Customs duty to the tune of Rs. 2.550/- he passed through the customs barriers. His statement given to the Customs Authorities, according to him, was under duress, coercion and due to the assault committed by the Customs Authorities. He submitted that the allegation by the Detaining Authority that he had been knowingly smuggling gold, foreign currency and Indian currency as stated in the grounds was untrue and/or mala fide.

(3.) The main contention of Mr. Balai Roy, the learned lawyer appearing on behalf of the detenu, was that although the detenu had been granted bail by an order of the High Court as stated earlier, such fact had not been placed before the Board, as such there had been non-application of mind, inasmuch as, had the attention of the Board been drawn to the fact, the Board after due consideration of such fact would have come to a different finding. As a follow-up action although a search was made at his residence, nothing incriminating was found there. Withholding of such material facts from the Board had resulted in such order. Under those facts and circumstances, the present proceeding in the nature of Habeas Corpus have been initiated.