NAGESH GANPATIVERNEKAR Vs. MAHENDRA PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -THE Joint Secretary to the Government of India, by order, dated August 29, 1989, passed in exercise of powers conferred by section 3 (1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of smuggling Activities Act, 1974 directed detention of the petitioner with a view to preventing him from engaging in transporting and keeping and concealing smuggled goods. The order of detention was served on the detenu on December 20, 1989 and the grounds of detention were furnished.

(2.) THE grounds of detention, inter alia, recite that on June 27, 1989, acting on secret information, the Officers intercepted the petitioner in the compound of Rustom Kadiwala Chawl at N. M. Joshi Marg, Bombay. The detenu stated that he was in possession of foreign marked gold bars. The detenu was searched and 10 foreign marked gold bars of 10 tolas each were recovered. The statement of the detenu was recorded on our occasions and the detenu admitted contents of the panchnama of seizure and made statements incriminating himself in the commission of the crime. The detenu was arrested on June 28, 1989 under Section 104 of the Customs Act and produced before the Metropolitan magistrate The detenue was released on bail on August 2, 1989. On this material, the detaining authority came to the conclusion that it is necessary to pass older of detention to prevent the petitioner from transporting and keeping and concealing smuggled goods. The order of detention is under challenge.

(3.) MISS Mane, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the detenu, submitted that order of detention is required to be quashed as there is inordinate and unexplained delay in execution of the order. The order of detention was passed on August 29, 1989 but was served on the detenu only on December 20, 1989. In paragraph 4 (a) of the i etition, it is claimed that the detenu has surrendered to the judicial ustody on December 5, 1989 and remained in judicial custody till the detention order was served on December 20, 1989. The learned counsel urged that there is no explanation as to why the order was not served prior to December 5, 1989 and, in any event, from the time the detenu was kept a judicial custody. We find considerable merit in the submission of the sarned counsel. The detaining authority, though duly served, has not carded to file any return and deny the claim made by the detenu. We are unable, to find any reason as to why the order of detention was not served immediately on the detenu. In any event, the detenu surrendered to judicial custody on December 5, 1989 and still the order was not served till december 20,1989. In our judgment, the delay in execution and service of the order of detention has remained unexplained and delay being inordinate, the order of detention is required to be quashed on that count.