HARI NARAIN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who has been detained in the Central Jail, Jaipur in pursuance of the order No. P.5(3) Grah-9/91 Jaipur dated 28.1.1992 {Annexure-1) passed by the State of Rajasthan (respondent No. 1 ) in exercise of the powers vested in it undersection 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA) has challenged his detention by filling this Habeas Corpus petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The brief facts are as under:

(2.) The petitioner had been employed with one KS Garg, who is carrying on the business of sale and purchase of gold and silver ornaments in Jaipur. On 2.7.1991, when the petitioner was going on his two-wheeler scooter, he was intercepted by the Customs Authorities, who, on checking, found 10 gold strips weighing 1166.500 grams lying with him. The Customs authorities recovered the said gold and recorded the statement of the petitioner under section 108 of the Customs Act wherein he had stated that the gold belonged to his employer KS Garg and that he had taken it to the shop of one Pradeep Kumar for using his press to erase the foreign marking from the gold. Thereupon, the Customs authorities proceeded further and found that Ghanshyam, Satyanarain were also involved in the matter and arrested them, but Mr. Garg obtained an order for anticipatory bail and could not be arrested. The petitioner, after his arrest, was released on bail under the orders of the Court and, subsequently, KS Garg, Satyanarain, Ghanshyam and the petitioner were detained under section 3 of the COFEPOSA. KS Garg, Satyanarain and Ghanshyam besides the petitioner challenged their detention by filing Habeas Corpus petitions. The petitions of all the three others have already been allowed and they have been set at liberty under the orders of the Court.

(3.) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record of the case.