DAURA SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 13-3-1991 Annexure P-1 passed by Joint Secretary to Government of India, under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (the Act for short) whereby he was ordered to be detained and kept in custody with a view to prevent him from smuggling goods.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case as gathered from the grounds of detention Annexure P-2 are that on 14-11-1990 on receipt of some information a special picket was held in the area of Rajatal by the Customs Preventive Staff Amritsar and BSF personnel. At about 0305 hours on 15-11-1990 two persons were seen coming. They were challenged to stop at which one of them fired on the picket parties. The other person who was the petitioner was apprehended and on his personal search, he was found to be in possession of seven packets containing 10 gold biscuits each bearing foreign markings. Under the cover of darkness the companion of the petitioner escaped. On search of the surrounding area a bandolier which was found abandoned in the field of Smt. Shindo was recovered and that too was found to contain 7 packets of 10 gold biscuits each. These 140 gold biscuits were weighted and were found to be of foreign origin of 24 carats purity the value of which was Rs. 55,50,160/-. These were seized by the Customs Preventive Staff Amritsar under Section 110 of the Customs Act. In his statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 the petitioner admitted that on 13-11-1990 he met Kashmir Singh of village Lopoke in Guru Nanak Hospital, Amritsar where Kashmir Singh offered him Rs. 50000/- for helping him to bring some goods and he agreed to do the job. Kashmir Singh brought the gold biscuits from across the border and handed over him on bandolier containing 70 gold biscuits, Joint Secretary to the Government of India, considering the circumstances of th case arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner smuggled goods into India and unless prevented he was likely to indulge in such activities in future. Thus the detention order which is assailed by this petition was passed.

(3.) IN the return filed by respondents it was contended that the competent authority had thoroughly gone into the details of the case was well as the real fact of the case and it was only then that subjective satisfaction to detain the petitioner was formed. It was maintained that when the petitioner was granted bail, he took an extra persecution not to indulge in smuggling activities and had temporarily suspended it lest he should invite more trouble in the event of his reapprehension. It was further maintained that after passing of the order necessary steps were taken to execute the same by visiting the addresses given by the detenu but he could not be traced out as he was absconding. He could only be traced out on 25-11-1992 and on the same date detention order was served.