LT GOVERNOR OF DELHI Vs. MOHAMMAD SAHID
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: DELHI)
GOVERNOR OF DELHI
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)The petition under Article 226 of the constitution read with section 428 of the code of Criminal Procedure was filed before the High Court at Delhi for quashing an order of detention dated 24th February, 1993 passed against the respondent herein by the Lt. Governor of the National capital Territory of Delhi under section 3 (1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, (for short, 'the Act' of 1974).
(2.)The contextual facts depicts that the respondent on arrival from Dubai on 20th November, 1992 at the Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi, crossed the green cnannel along with a blue zipper bag but the respondent's movement being suspicious he was intercepted near the exit gate of the arrival hall and was questioned for which he replied in the negative. Two independent witnesses were called and the respondent's bag was searched wherefrom 16 gold pieces were recovered which collectively weighed at 580 grams valued at rs. 2,34,400/ -. It is being the prosecutors case that inspite of the repeated opportunities the respondent could not produce any documentary evidence to show the lawful import of the above noted 16 pieces of gold coins in his possession and the same thus were seized under section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. Proceedings commenced and respondent's passport was also seized wherefrom it appears that on 13th March, 1989 to 17th November, 1992, the respondent was out of country in particular to Bangkok and Dubai at least on 10 different occasions and it is on the basis of this factual score, as noticed above, that the Lt. Governor of the National Capital Territory, that the Lt. Governor of the National Capital Territory of New Delhi came to the conclusion that the respondent had the inclination and the propensity for indulging in smuggling activities in an organized and clandestine manner and unless prevented the respondent was likely to indulge in such smuggling activities in future as well.
(3.)Prosecution and adjudication proceedings under the Customs Act, 1962 have already been initiated separately and the respondent was also detained under the provisions of the Act of 1974. It is this detention which stand challenged before the high Court in the petition under Article 226, as noticed hereinbefore.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.