N.K. AGGARWAL Vs. THE STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, through this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks the quashment of the order of detention dated 6-3-1990 passed by the State Government under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short "COFEPOSA") besides seeking a direction that this order should not be executed, interalia, on the ground that it is inherently illegal.

(2.) THE brief resume of facts relevant for the disposal of this petition is that while posted as Inspector in the Customs Division, Amritsar, on 27-10-1989 the petitioner abetted the smuggling of articles fully described in para 3 of the Grounds of Detention of the value of Rs. 1,00,760/- by arranging the entry of these articles illegally into India by the Customs Preventive Staff, Amritsar by intercepting white coloured Maruti Van bearing Registration No. JKS 5464 at 3 35 p.m. on that day on, the G. T. Road opposite to the Customs Preventive Station, Attari i.e. near the Indo-Pakistan border. Chand Beg of Delhi was one of the occupants of this car besides the taxi driver Parveen Kumar. On interrogation Chand Beg, disclosed that these goods belonged to two passenger, who were following them in another car. In the meanwhile, the other taxi also arrived there. Two persons who gave their identity as Mohd. Yusuf of Ajmeri Gate Delhi and his wife Hamsari Begum came out of that car. On interrogation, Chand Beg disclosed that he had arrived at the Wagah Border to receive these persons who were coming from Pakistan and on the basis of prior arrangement the clearance of the goods was made through one Paramjit Singh alias Pamma coolie who had hired the above-referred Maruti Van and took the same to Customs Area towards Indo Pakistan border and after 10-15 minutes, the Maruti Van came from the customs area loaded with the goods. He further disclosed that for sending passengers to pakistan he used to pay Rs. 2500/- per passenger to Pamma coolie and Rs. 3000/- per passenger on return of such person from Pakistan. Chand Beg also admitted having sent Altaf Ali and others from Delhi to Pakistan about 16 days earlier. Mohd. Yusuf also disclosed on interrogation that his trip to Pakistan was financed by Chand Beg but his wife was not taken into confidence in this regard. Be further confirmed having brought these articles from Pakistan for Chand Beg. Paramjit Singh coolie on interrogation in his statement recorded on 30th and 31st October, 1989 stated that at about 10 clock on 27-10-1989 the petitioner had, asked him to bring one taxi as two passengers of Chand Beg were coming on that day. He hired a taxi i.e. Maruti Van No. JKS-5464 and under the directions of N. K. Aggarwal, petitioner, took this van until the Customs Post where the above referred articles were loaded under the supervision of N. K. Aggarwal and thereafter Mr. Aggarwal escorted the van out of the Customs area on his scooter. Sarvshri Satish Kumar and Baljit Singh Sepoys posted on the said post on the Customs Area stated having seen Pamma coolie loading goods in the Maruti Van under the supervision of N. K. Aggarwal. They further stated that on enquiry N. K. Aggarwal represented that the goods were of his guests. They also supported the version of Paramjit Singh coolie about N. K. Aggarwal having escorted the van on his scooter out of the Customs area. Sarvshri Amar Singh and Surinder Kumar constables posted on the last gate of the Customs area also supported the above-referred version of the petitioner having escorted the van beyond that area. Parveen Kumar driver of the van, also supported the above-referred version.

(3.) THE petitioner in this Writ petition, inter alia, challenges the legality of detention order on the ground that the same having been passed about more than 4 months of the alleged prejudicial activity there was no nexus between the prejudicial activity and the detention order especially when during this period no prejudicial activity is attributed to the petitioner. The other ground urged is that a single prejudicial activity is not sufficient to pass the detention order. Retraction of confessional statements by Chand Beg, Mohd. Yusuf, Paramjit Singh coolie and Parveen Kumar was also stressed. The non execution of the detention order till the filing of the writ petition was also averred in support of the conclusion that the detaining authority was not satisfied that the petitioner will indulge in such prejudicial activity again and had passed the order mechanically without application of mind was also maintained that the petitioner being under suspension could not indulge in such like prejudicial activity and thus passing of the detention Order was not justifiable. The non disposal of the representation dated 26-7-1990 filed by the petitioner seeking revocation of the detention order was also stressed.