(1.) IN this application the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus by quashing an order of detention passed by Shri K.L. Verms, Joint Secretary, Govt. of India detaining him under the provisions of Conservation of Foreigh Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter called and referred to for the sake of brevity as 'COFEPOSA').
(2.) BREFT of all unnecessary details, the facts of the matter is as follows : - The petitioner was arrested on 8.8.1996 purported to be under Section 104 of the Customs Act, 1962 when he had gone to the Calcutta Airport for obtaining a baggage booked in the name of Sri. S. Chowdhury which, on suspicion having been opened, was found to be containing 21,000 wrist watches and some cycle parts. According to the petitioner he had travelled from Hongkong to Calcutta by Biman Bangladesh with one S. Chowdhury and the said baggage was missing and was registered as such. The said baggage having been found out Sri Chowdhury requested him to take delivery of the same on his behalf. In fact, according to the petitioner he was not aware of the contents of the said baggage. The petitioner was released on bail on certain conditions.
(3.) THE petitioner was also served with a notice under Section 111 (d), (i), (m) of the Customs Act, 1962 along with Sri Manoj Kothari and Sri Rajesh Kothari directing them to show cause as to why the seized articles should not be confiscated. The said notice is contained in Annexure 'A' to the writ application. It appears that the petitioner was examined by the custom authorities under the said Act. On 12.9.96, 16.9.96. 18.9.96, 20.9.96, 24.9.96, 7.10.96 and 14.10.96, whereas Sri Manoj Kothari was examined on 5.12.96, 6.12.96, 12.12.96, 13.12.96 and 20.12.96, Rajesh Kothari was also examined on 6.12.96. The gravamen of the charges against the petitioner as would appear from the said show cause notice as contained in Annexure 'A' as also the ground of detention dated 22.1.97, is that Sri Manoj Kothari was the king -pin and he had employed the petitioner as a carrier of the said wrist watches on a remuneration of Rs. 3,000/ -.