BALWINDER SINGH BITTU Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Balwinder Singh alias Bittu has come to this Court in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr. P.C. for issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus for quashing of detention order No. 673/344/91-CUS-VIlI dated August19, 1991 passed against him under Section 3 (I) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974.

(2.) The grounds of which the petitioner has been - detained may be summarised from Annexure P-3 on December 1, 1990 working on an information that gold of foreign origin was concealed in the residential premises of the petitioner, a search was carried out in the presence of two Independent witnesses and this search led to the recovery of 14 gold biscuits with foreign markings. Two gold dealers after testing the purity confirmed that this gold was of 24 carats purity and collectively weighed 1632.4 grams and valued at Rs. 5,71,340.00. On demand the petitioner failed to produce any document or any other evidence for lawful export/acquisition/possession in respect of the recovered gold biscuits. These gold biscuits were then seized under Section 10 of the Customs Act, 1962 on the basis of a reasonable belief that the same had been smuggled into India from a foreign country in contravention of the provisions of Imports and Exports (Controls) Act, 1947 read with Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962 and under Section 13 (1) of the FERA Act and the same were liable for confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962 and penal action under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 was to be taken. On December 1,1990 the petitioners statement was recorded where he admitted the ownership of the recorded gold and he further stated that he had received this gold from Hargopal Singh and Surinder Singh alias Kang and it was part of booty which was smuggled by one Dalbir Singh but it was looted by the petitioner in November or December 1988. The gold had been dumped in a plot under the crushed stones. He also disclosed the circumstances in which this gold had been robbed. Out of the total gold received, he also disclosed the circumstances in which the other gold had been disposed of. The petitioner had been remanded to judicial custody and was subsequently bailed out On the basis of these facts, the detaining authority felt satisfied that the petitioner had engaged in concealing and keeping smuggled goods and had dealt with smuggled goods otherwise than by engaging in transporting smuggled goods.

(3.) The petitioner has inter-alia averred that he had been released on bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, on February 8, 1991 and the detention order had been passed on August 19, 1991 and served upon him on November 27, 1991. The order is challenged on the ground that there was a delay of 7 months and 18 days in passing of the order from the date of his arrest for the prejudicial activity and there was also delay in execution of that order. The petitioner had also filed a representation; but the same was also not decided with promptness.