- (1.) VISHNU Sahai, J. Through this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-detenu Ranjeet Singh Vaishya has impugned the order dated 3-9-2002, passed by J. P. Sharma, Deputy Secretary, Home and Confidential Department, Govt. of U. P (Opposite Party No. 2), detaining him under Section 3 (1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the COFEPOSA Act ).
(2.) THE detention order alongwith the grounds of the detention, which are also dated 3-9-2002, was served on the petitioner-detenu on 7-11-2002 and their true copies have been annexed as Annexure Nos. 1 & 2 respectively to the writ petition. The prejudicial activities of the petitioner-detenu prompting the second respondent to issue the impugned detention order against him are contained in the grounds of detention. In short, their perusal shows as under : (a) Pursuant to an Information received by Directorate of Revenue intelligence, that on 20-3-2002, at about 8. 00 a. m. , a truck bearing No. SHR-38-G-1041 would be proceeding from Sampurna Nagar Palia on Shahjahanpur Puwaya Road for Delhi, where in a secret chamber imported goods were being brought from Nepal to India, Officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence proceeded to the spot and in the presence of two independent Panchas asked the driver of the truck to stop it. Thereupon, the driver stopped the truck. On being questioned, he disclosed his name as Ranjeet Singh (petitioner-detenu) resident of House No. 71, Dhopipura Morar, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh. Another person was also sitting in the truck, who on being questioned disclosed his name as Ramesh Bathain (cleaner of the truck and co-detenu ). He also disclosed the same address as Ranjeet Singh Vaishya. On being questioned, whether any imported items, which were concealed in the secret chamber on the truck, were being brought from Nepal to India, to be delivered at Delhi, Ranjeet Singh Vaishya and the co-detenu Ramesh Batham replied in affirmative. Since there was no proper arrangement to weigh the smuggled goods and also keeping in mind the security angle, officials of the Directorate, Revenue Intelligence, brought the truck, alongwith Ranjeet Singh and co-detenu Ramesh Batham, to their office at 3/71, Vivek Khand, Gomati Nagar, Lucknow. There the truck, was searched and from secret chamber 27 packets, (aggregate weight of which was 383 kgms.) of Vitamin-B 1, Doxicycline Powder and 19 packets/38 pieces of compressor were recovered. The total value of the recovered articles was Rs. 9,94,000/ -. On being questioned, Ranjeet Singh Vaishya and co-detenu Ramesh Batham admitted that the said articles were smuggled from Nepal to India and they had no import licence. They also admitted that they were concealed in the truck near India-Nepal Border in a farm house in Sampurna Nagar. (b) In his statement under Section 108 of the Indian Customs Act, recorded the same day, in the presence of Panchas, petitioner- detenu stated as under: On 7 to 8 occasions, in the past few months, he had brought smuggled goods from Nepal to Delhi, he had brought the seized goods at the behest of one Sheetal Sharma, a resident of Gwalior. Said goods were loaded in the secret Chambers of the truck at the farm house of one Omi in Sampurna Nagar. As directed by Sheetal, he was to take them to Delhi and contact Sheetal on telephone No. 3252025. For every visit to Nepal, he used to get Rs. 1,500/ -. The owner of the truck was Sheetal Sharma but on paper it was registered in the name of Manoj Kumar. There was a syndicate of Omi, Sheetal and Gulshan, which was involved in the business of smuggling goods. (c) In view of the aforesaid, prejudicial act committed by the petitioner-detenu, the officers of the Directorate, Revenue Intelligence arrested him for an offence punishable under Section 104 of the Indian Customs Act. On 21-3-2002, they produced him in the Court. On 1-4-2002, he applied for bail before the Special Judicial Magistrate, who rejected it. He thereafter preferred a bail application before the District and Sessions Judge, Lucknow who granted him bail on 2-5-2002. (d) In the grounds of detention, the detaining authority has expressed his subjective satisfaction that in order to prevent the petitioner-detenu from committing similar prejudicial acts in future, it was imperative to detain him under Section 3 (1) of the COFEPOSA Act. Therein he has also been apprised by the detaining authority his right to make representation to various authorities.
(3.) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties : "although in this writ petition Mr. Vivek Shrotia, learned counsel for the petitioner-detenu has made a number of pleadings and taken manifold grounds, but since Mr. Virendra Bhatia, learned Senior Advocate has only pressed before us the pleadings contained in paras 7, 8, 9, 13 and 14 of the petition and Grounds (b), (c) and (f) of para 30 thereof and those contained in paras 2 to 14 of the Supplementary Affidavit, dated 13-6-2002, filed by Mr. Vijai Kumar Sharma, we are not adverting to the other pleadings and the grounds on which the impugned order has been assailed. " The substance of the pleadings contained in paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 of the petition and Grounds (b) and (c) of Para 30 thereof is that the detention order was belatedly issued against the petitioner-detenu, on 3-9-2002 and on account of the said delay, the live link between the prejudicial activities of the petitioner-detenu and the rationale clamping a detention order on him has been snapped.;