( 1 ) AN order of detention of Omar Ahmed Ebrahim Neforani, a Kenyan national, was issued by the Government of Maharashtra on 2-9-1982 under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. It was mentioned that this was with a view to prevent him from smuggling goods and for the purpose his detention was necessary.

( 2 ) AT that time the detenue was not in India. He, however, was taken into custody on 18-10-1983 when he arrived in Delhi by air. He was taken to Bombay before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on the next date as the allegations were that he had earlier jumped bail in June 1982. On 20-10-1983 the aforesaid order of detention was; served on him when he was still in remand under the order of the Bombay Court. Ever since then he has been in detention.

( 3 ) THE order of detention passed under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act of the date 2-9-1982 described the detenu as a Kenyan National. No address of his in India was given. Similar was his description in the grounds of detention which were served upon him along with the detention order. These grounds have narrated the background which had resulted in the passing of. the detention order. Briefly stated the same was that the detenu had come to Bombay by air on 18-4-1982, from Bangkok. He passed through green channel and declared that he bad no dutiable or contraband article. However, his search by the Custom authorities revealed that he was carrying 500 grams of gold in his pouch, 250 grams of gold in one shoe and 100 grams of gold in the other shoe. The total gold, 850 grams so carried valued at Rs. 1. 01 (150. He was also found to be having a Rado Wrist Watch and some other articles valued at Rs. 47,600 M. V. His statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act was then recorded and he was taken into custody and produced before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bombay and remanded. Extensions of remand were given by that court from time to time till 22-5-1982 when on his application he was released on bail subject to his furnishing cash bail of Rs 40,000.

( 4 ) THE detenu states that soon thereafter he left India as he was not told that any case had been registered against him with the police or any complaint was filed before a court. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bombay however forfeited the bail amount of Rs. 40,000 when he did not subsequently appear before the court. This has been pleaded to be wholly unwarranted and illegal.

( 5 ) IF was thereafter that on 2-9-1982 that the impugned detention order was passed.

( 6 ) THE detenu s case is that he is carrying on import and export business at Kenya and Bangkok and has never indulged in smuggling activity. He had earlier visited India in 1979 but nothing incriminating was found in his possession. On 7-3-1982 he again visited India along with his wife and children and was validly cleared by the Custotms. He took his family to Bhavnagar to which place his ancestors originally belonged. He had also wanted to impart Islamic education to his children. During this visit they found the designs of Indian jewellery fascinating and, therefore, the family became interested in getting some jewellery made in Indian designs. In the meanwhile the detenu had to go to Bangkok because of an urgent business call and returned therefrom via Singapore. He family in the meanwhile had remained in India. At Singapore he found that there was a sudden crash in the price of gold and. therefore, he purchased 850 grams of gold keeping in view the desire shown by his family members to get some Indian design ornaments made. On theflight from Singapore to India he learnt that the carriage of Gold to India was prohibited and as such he became panicky. He also states that in 1979 when he had earlier visited India and passed through red channel, he had to face considerable harassment and hardship from the Custom authorities and several of his t