VIRSA SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition the petitioner challenges the detention order dated 22-6-1995 Annexure P/1 to the petition mainly on the ground that the said order is vitiated being violative of principles of natural justice.

(2.) The petitioner claims that he is a law abiding citizen and carries on business honestly for earning his livelihood. According to the petitioner he was illegally and wrongly taken into custody by the officials of D.R.I. Zonal Unit, New Delhi and Regional Unit, Amritsar and thereafter he was falsely involved in the recovery of some foreign exchange with which the petitioner had nothing to do. The petitioner while in custody was falsely implicated in this recovery. He was badly beaten and tortured and made to sign certain blank papers. On 26th of June, 1995 while the petitioner was in custody he was served with the order of detention dated 22-6-1995 directing his detention under the provisions of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, hereinafter referred to as the COFEPOSA Act. The grounds were also served upon the petitioner along with the order of detention. As per the grounds the petitioners is stated to have been intercepted by the D.R.I. officials at about 11.30 hours while they were on the two scooter and one Contessa car. The petitioner was one of the occupants of the Contessa car and they were intercepted while they were trying to hand over and take over the currency. Statements were recorded. The petitioner was arrested at 23.45 hours on 11-6-1995. According to the petitioner he was already in custody and has been falsely implicated in the case and the story put forward by the detention order is unbelievable and unthinkable. The petitioner has challenged the order on various grounds including non-application of mind, delay in passing implementation of the order and violation of principles of natural justice as the petitioner was not given any opportunity of being heard by the Board in spite of his requests.

(3.) Separate replies have been filed on behalf of Government of India and Superintendent of Jail. The stand taken therein is that the facts stated in the grounds of detention accompanying the detention order are correct. The petitioner is really involved in such activities which justifies his detention under the provisions of the Act. The respondents submitted that the petitioner on 25th of July, 1995 gave in writing that he does not wish to appear in person or even through Advocate before the Advisory Board. They further say that an order was passed by the Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 633 of 1995 on 26-6-1995 that before the petitioner is taken out of jail to be produced for any purpose before the Magistrate the investigating agency shall seek permission from the High Court. Thus, they claim that there is no violation of principles of natural justice and the order of detention have been passed in accordance with settled principles of law. The other ground urged by the counsel for the petitioner do not have any merit. What really needs to be considered in this case is whether there is violation of principles of natural justice and such violation is of the nature that it would vitiate the detention order. According to the petitioner he has been falsely implicated in this case and one Mr. Khanna who is a jail official had got blank papers signed from him. When his wife went to see the detenu in jail the interview was not permitted and she was informed that the detenu had given a letter that he did not want to be heard personally or through Advocate by the Advisory Board. The date of hearing before the Advisory Board was 28-7-1995. The representative on behalf of the petitioner, namely, Nirmaljit Kaur addressed telegram to the Chairman of COFEPOSA on 27-7-1995. The telegram contained all these allegations and unsigned representation which in fact the representative of the detenu had taken to jail for being signed by the detenu was also sent along with the telegram. According to the petitioner both the telegram and unsigned representations were received by the Board but the Board without affording any opportunity to the petitioner passed the order confirming the order of detention. These allegations which have been made in the writ petition and as well as an additional affidavit was filed on behalf of the petitioner, has not been disputed by the respondents in the counter-affidavit, filed by them.