ASHOK KUMAR ALIAS ASHOKI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment shall dispose of these two connected Criminal Writ Petitions Nos. 123 of 1993 and 124 of 1903 as common facts and question of law are involved there.

(2.) THE petitioners have sought quashing of the detention order which though passed have not been served upon the petitioners. Further direction has been sought to restrain the respondents from arresting and detaining the petitioners in connection with said orders under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention or Smugling Activities Act, 1974.

(3.) ON 4th December, 1992, the officers of the Enforcement Staff again visited the house of the petitioner and during search recovered the Indian Currency to the extent of about rupees seven lacs as also foreign currency which on conversion to Indian Currency amounts to rupees six lacs In connection with this recovery he was arrested and produced before the Magistrate on 5th December, 1992 and was remanded to judicial custody, upto 8th December, 1992. He was, however, released on bail by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on the same day. Recovery had been challenged by sending telegram by the wife of the petitioner and version given is that the recovery in fact was effected from one Sudhakar Verma and had been falsely foisted on him. That in another Crl. Writ Petition No. 790 of 1992 the order was passed by this Court staying the arrest of the petitioner. That same police officers had come to arrest the petitioner stating that he was ordered to be detained and the petitioner apprehended his detention under the COFEPOSA Act. That CrI. Writ Petition No. 790 of 1992 had been dismissed as infructuous as it had been stated at that stage that no detention order Lad been passed against the petitioner. That having obtained bail by the petitioner in both the cases the authorities had considered that only way to keep him in custody was to pass detention order under the COFEPOSA. There is, however, nothing on the facts or law which could satisfy the detaining authority that the petitioner was likely to indulge in activities which may justify his detention order, That authorities with mala fide intention want to detain the petitioner under the COFEPOSA. The order is being passed on account of vindictiveness and without there being material to cause bonafide satisfaction of the respondents for ordering detention of the petitioner under the COFEPOSA.