MANJIT SINGH GREWAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS will dispose of Criminal Writ Petitions No. 98 and 104 of 1994. Both petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been filed for quashing detention order dated 8.2.1994 in the case of Manjit Singh Grewal and detention order dated 27.1.1994 in the case of Jasvir Singh, passed by the respondent under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, (hereinafter referred to as the '1974 Act').

(2.) IN brief, the facts are that on the basis of specific information, the office of Customs Department, on 18.6.1993, searched the residential premises of Manjit Singh Grewal at House No. 130, New Lajpat Nagar, Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana and recovered 99 gold biscuits with foreign markings from a specially made cavity in the almirah, in the store-room attached to the bed-room on the first floor of the said house. A baggage receipt bearing No. 55665 dated 19.12.1992 issued by-Customs, I.G.I. Airport, New Delhi, in favour of Mahendra Pal Singh, Village Bojla, District Ganganagar (Rajasthan) for 42 gold biscuits bearing markings of Johnson Mathey, London, 9990 collectively weighing 4,929 grams and one passport bearing No. W-081885 issued by Regional Passport Officer, Chandigarh, in favour of Manjit Singh Grewal were also seized along with aforesaid 99 gold biscuits. The seized gold biscuits were assessed by two gold dealers of Ludhiana who in their certificates opined that the seized gold biscuits were of 24 carat purity, collectively weighed 11,547,360 grams and were valued at Rs. 50,23,101/-. On 20.6.1993, the officers of the Customs department seized two cars, Premier bearing Registration No. PCT-478 and Mercedes Benz bearing registration No. DL-3C-8503, on the basis of information that the said cars were used by Manjit Singh Grewal and Jasvir Singh for transportation of smuggling goods. Manjit Singh Grewal in his statements recorded, on 18.6.1993, 19.6.1993 and 20.6.1993, under Section 108 of the Customs Act admitted about the recovery of 99 gold biscuits, the baggage receipt and the passport. He further admitted that about one and a half year ago one Sukhdev Singh started giving him smuggled gold biscuits for disposal. Apart from this, he admitted that during last one and a half year, he had acquired and sold about 2,800 gold biscuits. He too disclosed that he used to transport the smuggled gold biscuits in his Fiat car bearing registration No. PCT-478 and Mercedes Car bearing registration No. DL-3C-8503 and had made a secret cavity in his aforesaid fiat car. He also admitted that on 28.4.1498, he was booked, by the Directorate of Enforcement, in a case under the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act, 1973. Jasvir Singh (petitioner in other petition, i.e. Crl. W.P. No. 104 of 1994) in his statement, on 19.6.1993, under Section 108 of the Customs Act, admitted that he was working with Manjit Singh Grewal and helping him in transportation and disposal of smuggled gold. He too admitted that the two vehicles, Fiat car bearing registration No. PCT-478 and Mercedes Car bearing registration No. DL-3C-C-8503, were used for transportation of smuggled gold. In the follow-up action, the premises of the persons, who were stated to have been involved with Manjit Singh Grewal and Jasvir Singh, were searched and their statements recorded. On the basis of material collected, the detaining Authority after having been satisfied that Manjit Singh Grewal and Jasvir Singh (petitioners) were engaged in transporting and dealing in smuggled goods, passed an order of detention against them, which orders are now being impugned here in these petitions.

(3.) ON behalf of the detaining Authority, affidavit has been filed by Ms. Amrita Atwal, Deputy Secretary Home, Punjab, Department of Home Affairs and Justice, Chandigarh, in which allegations made in the petitions have been denied. In regard to delay, it has been stated that the case was processed with due promptitude and application of mind at all stages and the time taken in passing the detention order is reasonable and has been adequately explained. Respondent has denied the allegation that there is no close nexus between the prejudicial activities indulged in by the petitioners and the detention orders. Complaints filed by the petitioners in the court of Judicial Magistrate against the Customs Officers/Officials have been stated to be an afterthought in order to escape from the clutches of law. With regard to supply of documents, it has been stated that the documents mentioned in the petitions are petitioners own documents which were not required to be supplied and moreover, material on record was sufficient for subjective satisfaction of the detaining Authority. If any document was required by the petitioners, the same would have been supplied to them on demand, but no such request was made prior to the filing of the writ petitions. It has been denied by the respondent that because of filing of contempt petition, the detention orders have been passed on 7.2.1994 and 20.1.1994. According to the respondent, all the relevant material was put up before the detaining Authority who after due consideration and application of mind, has passed the detention orders.