1987 Supreme(Del) 276
High Court Of Delhi
DINABANDHU MONDAL - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
C.W. 133 of 1987
Decided On : 07/29/1987
B.P.S.MANGAT, Harjinder Singh, Rajinder Datt
Headnote:(i) Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 - Detention order under - Challenged on the ground of non application of mind - Detaining authority did not take into consideration the bail applications and the conditional order of release of the petitioner by the High Court - Held; Order is liable to be set aside - Supreme Court Judgment in Anant Sakharam Rauts case; A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 137 relied upon.
Held, that at the time when the order is to be passed, it is for the detaining authority to consider as to what are the relevant circumstances and then to form his opinion thereon. But once an order of detention is challenged in a Court then the Court certainly has the jurisdiction to go into the question and to decide as to whether all the relevant circumstances have been considered by the detaining authority or not. In the present case, admittedly the most material documents which have not been considered by the detaining authority are the bail applications and the orders passed thereon. Absence of consideration of these documents to my mind, amounts to non application of mind on the part of the detaining authority rendering the detention order invalid. (Para 8)
(ii) Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 - Detention order - Validity challenged on the ground of long delay in the passing of the order and its execution on the petitioner - Incident took place on 27-2-1986 - Impugned order was passed on 24-6-1986 - Execution on the petitioner on 22-10-1986 - Delay not explained satisfactorily - Delay of four months in passing the order is held fatal to the order of detention.
Held, the facts reveal that a very casual approach was given to an important order of detention and its due execution on the detenue. Prima facie, the explanation as disclosed in the counter affidavit is not convincing. It reveals a complete disregard of the urgency it deserved, while dealing with the case of preventive detention. This circumstance by itself is enough to quash the order of detention. (Para 16)
Result-
Petition allowed.
( 2 ) IN his statement under S. 108 of the Customs Act, Shri Dinabandhu Mondal, claimed the ownership of all the twenty pieces of gold biscuits of foreign origin and, inter alia, stated that he had started smuggling foreign gold since Dec. 1985 and from then he brought at least 107 pcs. of gold biscuits. On 26th Feb. 1986, a man, namely, Fazlul Hague came to him and handed cover 20 pcs. of gold biscuits and the petitioner in turn gave him Rs. 1,00,000/- in Indian currency. Then the 20 pcs. of gold biscuits were kept in the secret cavity of his father s car No. WBJ 8475. On 27th Mar. 1986, he along with his younger brother, Prosenjit Mondal left his place, Hakimpur at that time he did not know anything about the gold. On the way, Shri Monoranjan Ghosh, a person known to him from before, boarded the said car. Further, on the way, at Khashpur, his driver Shri Bholanath Karmakar boarded the car and started driving. However, at Banipur Chowmatha a signal was given by the police officers to stop. He, however, directed the driver to speed away but the car was later on intercepted and the search yielded in the recovery of the gold. He further stated that he smuggled those 20 pcs. of gold biscuits of foreign origin from Bangladesh and, therefore, could not produce any lucid document. The other occupants almost narrated the same sequence which resulted in the recovery of 20 pcs. of gold, but they denied their involvement in the smuggling. In the course of follow-up action, the residential premises of the accused persons were immediately searched but neither any valuable document nor any incriminating material came to their possession.
( 3 ) ON the basis of the facts and material which came to light, Shri M. L. Wadhawan, Additional Secretary to the Government of India, had no hesitation in holding that Shri Dinabandhu Mondal, the present petitioner has been smuggling goods and engaging in transporting and concealing smuggled goods. Even though, adjudication and prosecution proceedings under the Customs Act, 1962 are likely to be initiated but he is satisfied that the petitioner should be detained under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smu