I.P.Singh. J. - (1.) Through this petition, petitioner Rajendra Prasad alias Ram Kishall (hereinafter referred to as the detenu) challenges the validity of the detention order dated 6.11.81 passed by the State Government under section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange & Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
(2.) The facts of the case al appearing from the petition, counter-affidavit and the rejoinder affidavit are as follows: On 16.4.81, the officials of the Customs Department detained the detenu at Char-Bagh Railway Station, Lucknow when he arrived there from Gorakhpur by Vaishali Express and his personal search yielded to 400 foreign wrist watches worth approximately Rs. 40,000/-. The said recovery was recorded in the recovery memo prepared on the spot. At the same time the statement of the detenu was recorded in which he gave out his wrong name as Ram Kishan though the remaining address was disclosed correctly. It was during the visit to his house at the given address that on 20.4.81 his father gave out his correct Dame as Rajendra Prasad. However, in his said statement dated 16.4.81 he had admitted that he visited Bhairwa in Nepal where he met one Joshiji who represented himself to be running a shop in the name of Vishal Fancy Store and desired him to take the consignment of wrist watches to Lucknow and Kanpur and deliver the same there for a reward of Rs. 500/- per trip. He had already delivered two consignments of 300 wrist watches at Kanpur and Lucknow within the past two months. He also admitted that the consignment of watches seized was also being transported for the same end. Accordingly, in pursuance of proceedings under sections 112/111, Customs Act the recovered wrist watches were confiscated. No proceedings under section 135 of the Customs Act had so far been taken, against the detenu though he was arrested under section 104 of the Customs Act. In May, 1981 the detenu was released on bail by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow vide his order passed under section 104 (3) of the Customs Act. However, in pursuance of the statement given by the detenu to the Customs authorities on 16.4.81 they had to investigate the matter in an effort to find out the source of these watches and apprehend the persons on whose behalf the detenu was operating. It was only on 16.9.81 that the Customs Department made a proposal to the Government to consider the question of passing an order of detention against the detenu. The State Government after considering the entire material and being satisfied that with a view to prevent the detenu from (i) smuggling goods, or (ii) engaging in concealing or keeping smuggled goods it was necessary to detain him, passed the impugned order of detention. It is obvious that the sole incident of 16 4.81, as mentioned above, was the only ground leading to the above satisfaction and passing of the impugned order of detention.
(3.) As seen above the detention order was passed on 6.11.81 when the detenu had already been released on bail by the C.J.M., Lucknow in May, 1981. This detention order, therefore, had to be executed by arresting the detenu.;