LAWS(PAT)-1989-8-33

SURENDRA SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On August 29, 1989
SURENDRA SINGH Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus praying, inter alia, for revocation of the order of detention dated 8th October, 1988 passed by Respondent No.2 the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, against the petitioner under section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the COFEPOSA ACT together with the order dated 29th December, 1988 issued by respondent No.3, Under Secretary to the Government of India, informing the petitioner that his detention has been confirmed for a period of one year under the provisions contained in section 8(t) of the Cofeposa Act by the Central Government copies thereof have been annexed as Annexure-1 and 2 respectively.

(2.) The petitioner is the owner of the truck bearing Registration No. PCI 4219 and undertakes the transportation of goods from one place to another as provided under the Common Carrier Act, 1865, throughout the territory of India. The petitioner was arrested on 21-5-1988for alleged violation of section 11 of the Customs Act read with section 3(i) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1974 in connection with smuggling of foreign synthetic hosiery clothes vide case No.71/88 dated 20-5-1988 of the Customs Division, Muzaffarpur, and was lodged in Muzaffarpur Central Jail. While the petitioner was in jail custody in the aforesaid customs case, he was served with the impugned order dated 8th October, 1988, directing that the petitioner be detained and kept in custody in Central Jail, Bhagalpur, in order to prevent him from abetting the smuggling of goods and engaging in transporting smuggled goods together with the grounds in support of the said order.

(3.) The grounds on which the detention order has been passed is as follows: On 20-5-1988 on basis of information the Customs Officers of Muzaffarpur Division intercepted Truck No. PCI 4219 near Pipra Kothi and apprehended you and your driver Naurang Singh, Sb. Late Chota Singh after Chasing when you fled from the said truck which when examined was found to be loaded with synthetic hosiery clothes of 3rd country origin. TI The said truck was thoroughly searched in presence of two independent witnesses which subsequently resulted in recovery of 190 balse weighing 3420 kgs. net of synthetic hosiery clothes and some documents. You could not produce any valid documents for legal possession or legal importation of the goods in question, as such panchanama was prepared and goods, said truck and documents recovered from cabin of said truck were seized under Customs Act. You were arrested under Customs Act on 21-5-1988 and forwarded to presiding Officer Special Court for Economic Offences, Muzaffarpur on 21-5-1988. Your bail petition has been rejected by. Honble Court of Presiding Officer Economic Offences Court, Muzaffarpur. District Judge, Muzaffarpur and High Court, Patna. Although you are in judicial custody, there is every likelyhood of your being bailed out. From the facts and circumstances of the case and the material placed before me I find that as the owner of the truck bearing register No. PCI 4219 you had accepted, the job of transporting the smuggled goods from Nepal to India through bordering region of Sikta containing synthetic hosiery clothes of 3rd Country prigin. You had full knowledge of smuggled goods being carried in the said truck and you had acompanied alongwith your driver and others. You were to receive extra money for the job of transporting the said smuggled goods and you have admitted your guilt. From the foregoing facts and circumstances it is evident that your are engaged in transporting smuggled goods and abetting the smuggling of goods (not legible) and unless prevented you will continue to do so in future. Although prosecution and departmental proceedings arc likely to be initiated against you it is necessary to detain you. I am satisfied that it is necessary to detain you under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 with a view to preventing you from abetting the smuggling of goods and engaging in transporting the smuggled goods. It appears that from the facts and circumstances of the case and the materials produced before the Detaining Authority he was satisfied that it was necessary to detain the petitioner under the COFEPOSA ACT with a view to preventing him from abetting the smuggling of goods and engaging in transporting the smuggled goods.