HIRA LAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HIRA Lal petitioner has filed the present petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of detention order Annexure P-1 dated September 4, 1992 passed against him under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1972 (as amended hereinafter called the Act) by Joint Secretary to Government of India, with a view to prevent him from indulging in activities prejudicial to the augmentation of country's foreign exchange resources in future. He also prays for a direction to the respondent not to arrest or detain him in pursuance of the order Annexure P-1.

(2.) THE brief resume of the facts as given in the grounds of detention is that on 1-7-1992 at about 11 p.m. the officers of Enforcement Directorate, Jalandhar intercepted a white Maruti Car bearing registration No. DL 2CC 5991 at workshop chowk Jalandhar. The petitioner was the occupant of the car and he tried to run away. He was overpowered and searched under Section 34 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1970 which resulted in the recovery of Foreign Exchange i.e. U.S. $ 11,685 Canadian $ 8,131/-, D.M. 12,040/-, 5,450/-, B. Francs 100/- Dhirhams 440/- Liras, 15,00,000/-. All this foreign currency and the car in question were seized vide seizure memo. On 2-7-1992, statement of the petitioner was recorded wherein he admitted that he purchased the seized Foreign Exchange at the instance of one Bhaiya Fattu residing in Paharganj, Delhi who dealt in old and torn Currency notes and had provided him Rs. 10 lacs for purchasing Foreign Exchange. He invested Rs. 2 lacs of his own in this business of sale and purchase of Foreign Exchange. He purchased the foreign exchange from persons who came from abroad and sold the same to Fattu on some profit. Subsequently search of the residential premises of the petitioner was conducted by the officers of Enforcement which resulted in seizure of five loose sheets containing telephone numbers of different person.

(3.) THE petition was resisted by the respondent on the ground that pendency of any criminal case against the petitioner did not effect his detention. The mere fact that the petitioner was arrested under a particular law and later on he was enlarged on bail and steps had been taken to prosecute him was no bar against the detention of the petitioner. It was further maintained that the petitioner remained absconding and he did not surrender before the appropriate authorities after coming to know that a detention order had been passed against him. He avoided his detention intentionally. This fact was admitted that the petitioner sent telegrams and letters to the Director of Enforcement New Delhi levelling certain allegations but those allegations were looked into and were found to be baseless and motivated. Detention order in question was not passed being influenced by the act of the petitioner and in fact seizure of huge foreign exchange from the petitioner showed that he was indulging in unauthorised purchase and sale of foreign currency and was thus hampering augmentation of foreign exchange reserves of the country in a regular manner.