RAM PARTAP Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this criminal writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 read with Article 22 of the Constitution of India, Ram Partap petitioner seeks the quashing of the detention order dated 3.6.1991 Annexure P-1, passed by the Joint Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Defence, Department of Revenue, New Delhi, against him whereby he was directed to be detained and kept in custody in the Central Tihar Jail, New Delhi, with a view to preventing him from smuggling of goods.

(2.) THE facts on the basis of which the detention order Annexure P1 has been passed may be taken from the grounds of detention Annexure P2 and briefly narrated are to the following effect, that the petitioner and another passenger, Baldev Singh travelled by Flight No. SQ 08 (from Singapore). The petitioner got his luggage checked and he declared goods valued at Rs. 5,000 which were charged to customs duty. In the meantime, Baldev Singh was intercepted and 32 gold biscuits of foreign making were recovered from his baggage which were concealed in two Nivia Cream containers. On interrogation Baldev Singh made a disclosure statement that the said gold belonged to the petitioner who had travelled with him on the same flight and the gold had been handed over to him by the petitioner at Singapore. Thereafter Baldev Singh pointed out the petitioner in the arrival hall. The petitioner was then interrogated about smuggling of goods, but he replied in the negative. On his personal search, nothing was recovered. His baggage was then got X-rayed and some dark spot was observed. The opening of the baggage led to the recovery of 4 gold biscuits 13 of 20 grams and one of 50 grams). On demand, both the petitioner and Baldev Singh failed to produce the documents for legal import/possession of the said gold. Both of them were then arrested under Section 104 of the Customs Act, 1962 and produced in the Court of the Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi on 23.4.1990. They were remanded to judicial custody till 7.5.1990. They were allowed bail by the said Court on 11.5.1990. On 8.10.1990 the case was adjudicated and the complaint was filed regarding which cognizance was taken by the Court. It was, however, considered that to prevent the petitioner from indulging in anti-smuggling activities he should be detained under the provisions of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (briefly 'the COFEPOSA Act'). Although various pleas were taken, yet one of the grounds is that there was a delay of more than a year in passing of the impugned detention order and the same should be quashed. In reply to the plea about this delay, the following stand was taken by the respondent-authorities :-

(3.) IN Lakshman Khatik v. The State of West Bengal, AIR 1974 SC 1264, the order of detention was held to be invalid where it had been passed after a lapse of about 8 months from the dates of incidents. Dealing with the matter of delay, their Lordships made the following observations :-