SUBASH CHANDER Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER :- This petition has been filed under Art. 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the detention order No. F.M. 673/33/95-CVS-VIII dated 12-5-1995 (Annexure P. 1) passed by respondent No. l against the petitioner under S. 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Act.

(2.) The necessary facts for the disposal of the petition can be gathered from the return filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2.On specific information, the officers of the Enforcement Directorate, Jalandhar held a naka on 6-3-1995 opposite District Jail Hoshiarpur. Car No. PB 11-E 9295 was intercepted. Occupants of the car introduced themselves as Subhash Chander Gupta (Petitioner herein) and Sanjay Gupta son of the petitioner. As a result of the search of the car conducted in the presence of the witnesses under S. 36 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 Registration and Insurance Certificates were recovered from the dash board of the car and a sum of Rs. 1,22,400/- was recovered from right front door of the car kept concealed. As a result of the personal search of the petitioner conducted under S. 34 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 incriminating documents indicating sale-purchase of foreign exchange in code words and foreign exchange as detailed in para 2 of the return were recovered. Statement of the petitioner under S. 40 of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was recorded on 63-1995 and 7-3-1995 wherein he admitted the recovery of the Indian currency concealed in the right front door of the car, foreign exchange and incriminating documents as per panchnama. He also decoded the codes used by him in the seized documents. He also admitted that during the last one year he had purchased foreign currency worth Rs. 4,25,00,000/- and sold the same after keeping the profits. As per documents seized from him he had purchased foreign currency to the tune of Rs. 9,58,284/- during one week. The petitioner was arrested on 7-3-1995 and was produced before the Duty Magistrate on 8-3-1995. The representation made by the petitioner was considered and suitable reply was sent. Thereafter the impugned detention order was passed by the Joint Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi.

(3.) The case of the petitioner is that no such recovery was effected from him and all the allegations are false. He was picked up from his house on 6-3-1995 and his signatures were obtained on certain papers. He denied recovery of incriminating documents, foreign exchange or Indian currency from his possession. It is further stated that the prejudicial activity dated 6-3-1995 and the impugned detention order has been passed on 12-3-1995, thus there is a delay of 21/2 months in passing the said detention order. It has also been stated that the petitioner was granted bail on 20-4-1995 and it is only to thwart the order of grant of bail that the impugned detention order has been passed.