TMI Blog1987 (2) TMI 508X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the supply of dollars in Hongkong. On the basis of his depositions the residential premises of Surinderpal Singh were searched which resulted in seizure of certain incriminating documents. 2. Statement of Surinderpal Singh was also recorded wherein he admitted that previously he was working as a carrier for one Manmohan Singh of Ashok Vihar, New Delhi for bringing foreign goods from abroad. Later on, his relations with Manmohan Singh got strained and he started his own trips to Dubai and Hongkong as he had no difficulty for money because his father Mangal Singh was working in Dubai. He also deposed that he had made arrangements for payment of money abroad to Anil Kumar Bhasin, the present petitioner, the details of which find mention in the grounds of detention. In this way, Shri Anil Kumar made payments to the tune of ₹ 2,62,500/- to Surinderpal Singh. 3. On the basis of the depositions made by Surinderpal Singh, the residential premises at F-65, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi were searched on 4-1-1986 when certain documents were seized. On the basis of those documents, the statement of the present petitioner was recorded wherein he admitted that he had developed acquai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o suspect or apprehend that the petitioner would act in a manner prejudicial to the augmentation of foreign exchange. The petitioner's detention in these circumstances is in violation of Articles 14, 1, 21 and 22(5) of the Constitution and the impugned order of detention dated 23-5-86 deserves to be quashed. 6. The respondents in their counter have controverter the pleas by alleging that the detention order has been passed with a bona fide view to prevent the petitioner from indulging in activities prejudicial to the augmentation of foreign exchange. In fact, the petitioner has been systematically engaged in such activities for a long time. Even otherwise, the solitary incident of such a nature is sufficient to justify the order of detention. Even otherwise, there is no undue delay in deciding the representation of the petitioner as alleged. None of the grounds urged by the petitioner at the bar has any substance and the impugned order is not liable to be quashed. 7. Before dealing with the grounds of attack it is relevant to keep in mind the settled proposition of law that a person preventively detained under the provisions of the N.S.A. is entitled to be released if ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sertion of an Under Secretary to the Government of India that it was received in the Ministry of Finance on 14-7-86 does not inspire confidence. Certainly he has to go by the covering letter and the receipt of the representation in the department. But the real explanation should have been from the concerned official at whose desk it was delayed. This is not there. The next gap in dealing with the representation at the Ministry level is from 14th to 31st July, 1986. During this period, the representation has passed two stages. From 14-7-86 to 21-7-86, it remained in the office of the Ministry of Finance. The second stage is when it was sent on 22nd July, 1986 to the Director of Enforcement Hqrs. Office, who in turn sent it to Delhi Zone office for their comments. The same could not be disposed of till 7th of August, 1986. This delay is sought to be explained by the respondents thus : That the representation of the detenu was addressed to Shri M.L. Wadhawan, Additional Secretary to the Government of India and it was received in this office of the Ministry of Finance on 14-7-86. Shri Wadhawan was away on official tour and the representation was dispatched to Joint Secretary (COFEPO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; document nor has he urged any fresh grounds. The representation in a way was like a mercy petition. All the facts were already with the detaining authority. Even if it be assumed for the sake of arguments that the representation did call for certain comments, then it was the foremost duty of the Officer concerned to have attended to the representation on preferential basis. It would have been better for the respondent to have at least filed the affidavits of the officer concerned who dealt with the representation on day to day basis explaining the inordinate delay which has occasioned in its rejection. The absence of such an evidence to my mind is fatal. 8. The practice of calling for comments from other departments or seeking the opinion of the various officers concerned has been deprecated by the Supreme Court in a number of cases. One such case is reported in Harish Pahwa v. State of U.P. . The relevant observations of the Supreme Court on this aspect read as under : The representation made by a detenu has to be considered without any delay. The Supreme Court does not look with equanimity upon delays when the liberty of a person is concerned. Calling comments from other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etitioner was not detained or produced before the A.C.M.M. New Delhi. No complaint/Chillan was prepared or filed in the Court. The Officer of the Enforcement Directorate released the petitioner on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of ₹ 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount. Admittedly, therefore, no further enquiry was conducted nor any more material gathered either from the petitioner or any of his contacts. However, the order of detention was passed by the Additional Secretary to the Government of India on 23-5-86 and on the same day, the petitioner was served with the same. In between the period of about 4V2 months, no untoward incident has happened nor has any adverse activity of the petitioner come to the knowledge of the detaining authority. For that purpose, the petitioner was not served with any show cause notice or any attempt was made to cancel his bail bond. Under these circumstances, can the act of the detaining authority be considered as preventive. The simple answer to this query can be in the negative. Admittedly, the petitioner is not the main person behind arranging or dealing in the foreign exchange. Mangal Singh, resident of Dubai is t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
