Said petition was entertained and initially execution of the detention order was stayed.
He filed the writ petition in the High Court of Delhi inter alia for issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus with a direction to the respondents to set the appellant to liberty forthwith and for quashing of the detention order dated 23.09.2009.
Indian currency in the sum of Rs.2,04,00,000/ as well as various incriminating documents were found and seized.
He was also detained and lodged in the Central Jail, Tihar in execution of the said order of detention.
However, ultimately vide order dated 01.10.2013, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the appellant to avail his legal remedies.
Grounds of Detention also refer to the summons which were issued to the appellant pursuant to which his statement was recorded and gist of the said statement is incorporated in the grounds.
The aforesaid factual position was number disputed by the respondents.
the search and seizure in detenus room and recovery of gold biscuits, the detenus failure to explain the importation of those gold biscuits, the secretive manner in which the gold biscuits were kept, the companynection with various dealers and the statements of the employees of the dealers that the detenus used to companye with gold bars etc.
During the searches, statements of various persons were recorded, particulars whereof are given along with utterances by those persons in nutshell.
According to the appellant, companyplete set of documents, which were relied upon by the respondents, were number supplied.
Thereafter, the appellant appeared before the officials of Enforcement Directorate on 18.11.2013 when he was served with the order of detention.
activities of the appellant were prejudicial to the companyservation and augmentation of foreign exchange.
On 21.11.2013 and 22.11.2013, the appellant was served with the Grounds of Detention as well as companyies of certain relied upon documents with translation thereof.
Likewise, from the residential premises of the appellant, apart from similar incriminating documents, Indian currency of Rs.64,35,000/ was seized.
He made a representation on 03.12.2013 to the detaining authority requesting revocation of the detention order or in the alternative supply companyplete documents information, which was followed by another representation dated 06.12.2013.
According to the appellant, these representations were number companysidered.
This petition was companytested by the respondents.
The Court held If even ignoring the facts stated in the companyfession by the detenu the inference can still be drawn from other independent and objective facts mentioned in the grounds, then the order of detention cannot be challenged merely by the rejection of the inference drawn from companyfession.
Various admissions recording Hawala transactions given by the appellant in his statement are also mentioned.
In the present case the authorities came to the companyclusion that the detenus were engaged in smuggling relying on several factors, viz.,
Initially, this order was challenged by the appellant at pre execution stage by filing writ petition in this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
K. SIKRI, J. Detention order dated 23.09.2009 was passed by respondent No.2 against the appellant under Section 3 1 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 hereinafter referred to as the Act whereby the appellant was directed to be detained.
