KARNAIL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH this petition, Karnail Singh detenu challenges the order of his detention dated 31-1-1990 passed under Section 3(3) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short referred to as the COFEPOSA Act) with a view to prevent the detenu from engaging in the smuggling of goods from Pakistan as a carrier and also engaging in keeping and concealing smuggled goods i.e. gold biscuits. This order of detention was served upon the petitioner on 1-3-1990 alongwith the grounds of detention.

(2.) THE brief resume of relevant facts figuring in the grounds of detention is that in the first week of March, 1989, Dalbir Singh etc. approached the petitioner and offered the detenu Rs. 5,000/- per trip for bringing contraband articles from Pakistan. Dalbir Singh then told the petitioner about the 'Att' fixed for the third day from that day and handed slip. On the next day, petitioner also persuaded his brother Tarlok Singh to work as a carrier on a consideration of Rs. 500/- per trip. Accordingly the detenu along with his brother Tarlok Singh crossed Indo-Pak border during the night and met Yaqoob son of Jal Mohammad of village Dial at the appointed place at a distance of 40/50 yards from the border and handed over the Indian currency and the ruqqa to Yaqoob, who in turn handed over 10 gold biscuits to the petitioner. The petitioner handed over five gold biscuits to his brother Tarlok Singh. Thereafter the gold biscuits were concealed by the petitioner as well as by his brother in their respective turbans and the next 'Att' was fixed for the next month. The petitioner and his brother then crossed over to India with gold biscuits and Tarlok Singh was paid Rs. 500/- by the petitioner and the former handed over five gold was paid Rs. 500/- biscuits to the latter. On the next day, the petitioner handed over these gold biscuits to aforesaid Dalbir Singh and in return received Rs. 5,000/-. Thereafter in the middle of April, 1989, on the instructions of Dalbir Singh, the petitioner alongwith his brother, Tarlok Singh again went to Pakistan and brought 10 gold, biscuits from aforesaid Yaqoob. These gold biscuits were also handed over to Dalbir Singh and Rs. 5,000/- were received by the petitioner for this trip. Again in the last week of April, 1989, on the instructions of Dalbir Singh, the petitioner along with this brother Tarlok Singh went to Pakistan and brought 10 gold biscuits to India. On the next day, the petitioner delivered ten gold biscuits to Dalbir Singh at Amritsar but the latter returned five biscuits saying that those were not genuine and asked the petitioner to return these biscuits to the Pak smuggler. Dalbir Singh did not pay Rs. 5,000/- to the petitioner for this trip till the procurement of genuine five gold biscuits. The petitioner then returned to his house in village Naushehra Dhalla and informed his brother Tarlok Singh of this episode. Two or three days thereafter, the petitioner handed over those five gold biscuits to his brother Tarlok Singh for burying the same in their fields which are located close to Indo-Pak border. The petitioner, also instructed his brother to return the five gold biscuits to Yaqoob whose fields also adjoin the fields of the petitioner on Pakistan side. Accordingly, Tarlok Singh buried these gold biscuits in his fields. Tarlok Singh failed to deliver the gold biscuits to Yaqoob due to the vigil kept by the Border Security Force. A patrolling party of the Border Security Force recovered those five gold biscuits from the fields of the petitioner and his brother and on 2.5.1989, a case bearing FIR No. 108 for offences under Sections 411/414, Indian Penal Code, read with Section 110 of the Customs Act was got registered at Police Station Gharinda, district Amritsar. The petitioner was arrested in that case on 29.5.1989 and interrogated by the police. During interrogation by the police, the petitioner confessed having indulged in the above referred prejudicial activity which resulted in passing the above referred order of detention.

(3.) I have perused the original record of the sponsoring authority as well as the detaining authority produced by Mr. S. S. Saraon, the learned Assistant Advocate General, under the directions of this Court.