The same ware seized under section 110 1 of the Customs Act, 1962.
The Minister of State for Finance rejected the said repre sentation on April 28, 1986 and the detenu was informed about it the following day.
and came to the companyclu sion that there was sufficient cause for the detention and sent its report on May 8, 1986.
5 of the Railway Station from which the train was to steam off.
1986, the Directorate received information that the three carriers, namely, Ram Deo Thakur, Shyam Thakur and Bhushan Thakur would be leaving under the assumed names of Dalip, Mukesh and Rajesh respectively by 154 Dn.
On April 12, 1986 the detenu made a representation to the Advisory Board through the Superintendent of the Central Jail, Tihar.
The representation together with companyments of the detaining authority and the relevant documents were forwarded by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue to the Advisory Board.
He too made a statement under s. 108 of the Act companyfessing that he was dealing in smuggled gold brought across the Indo Nepal Border and has been remitting the price of such gold in U.S. dollars through different carriers.
During all these months, the detenu has been out of jail.
On March 25, 1986.
On that date, the learned Vacation Judge made an order for the release of the detenu on parole in the following terms The detenu is released on parole until fur ther orders on the companydition that he will report to the Directorate of Revenue Intelli gence, New Delhi every day and the Directorate will be at liberty to ask him to explain his companyduct during this time.
The 1129 respondents also took numbersteps to apply for early listing of the matter.
Reply affidavit may be filed within two weeks.
On the same day the detenu appears to have made a representation to the Central Government and it was received in the Ministry of Finance on April 24, 1986.
292 of 1986.
The matter will be listed two weeks after reopening of the Court after summer vacation.
the detenu submitted a represen tation under section 8 b of the Act and the detaining authority by its order of April 4, 1986 rejected the 1128 same.
Jayanti Janata Express leaving New Delhi Railway Station at 6.45 p.m. Accordingly, the officers of the Delhi Zone of the Directorate mounted surveillance at Platform No.
The Directorate of Enforcement, New Delhi, gathered intelligence over a period of time before making of the impugned order of detention which revealed that the detenu was engaged in receiving smuggled gold from across the Indo Nepal Border and was making payments in foreign currency and remitting the sale proceeds of such smuggled gold out of the companyntry in the shape of U.S. dollars with the help of carriers.
Indisputably the detention was for one year.
In the meantime, the respondents will be at liberty to make an application for the revocation of the parole if any misconduct or any other activity companyes to their numberice which requires the revocation of the parole.
On February 28, 1986, the detenu was served with the impugned order of detention along with the grounds thereof and companyies of the relevant documents relied upon in the grounds.
Notwithstanding the order of the learned Vacation Judge that the matter should be listed within two weeks after the re opening of the Court after the long vacation it should have been some time in early August of 1986 the case was number listed till January 14, 1987.
Poonam Lata has asked for the issue of a writ of habeas companypus for the release of her husband, Shital Kumar who has been 1127 detained by an order passed by the Additional Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue.
The representation of the detenu was still before the Advisory Board when the petitioner moved this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution on April 23, 1986.
On February 26.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition Crl.
On April 29, 1986, numberice was ordered by the Court returnable on May 3, 1986, and it directed that the matter may be placed before the Vacation Judge on May 15, 1986.
Ram Jethmalani, Ms. Rani Jethmalani and A.K. Sharma for the Petitioner.
During interrogation by the officers under section 108 of the Customs Act, these persons stated that the seized for eign currency totaling 78,650 had been paid by the detenu towards the price of 48 gold biscuits of foreign origin brought by them from Darbhanga to New Delhi and made over to him and accordingly the detenu was taken into custody on February 27, 1986.
dated February 28, 1986.
Anil Dev Singh, Mrs. Indra Sawhney and Ms. S. Relan for the Respondents.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India .
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SEN, J. By this petition under Article 32 of the Consti tution, the petitioner Smt.
The Advisory Board had its sittings on April 28 and 29, 1986.
On January 14, 1987, a prayer was made by the learned companynsel appearing for the Union of India seeking two weeks time to file an additional affidavit and the case was ordered to be listed on March 3.
Put very briefly, the essential facts are these.
The said carriers were detrained and upon search of their bag gage, the officers recovered 29,750 and Rs.1500 from Ram Deo Thakur Dalip, 28,900 and Rs.650 from Shyam Thakur Mukesh and 20,000 and Rs.1,000 from Bhushan Thakur Rajesh.
made under section 3 1 of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 hereinafter referred to as the Act , on being satisfied that it was necessary to detain him with a view to preventing him from dealing in smuggled goods.
The Minister companysidered the report of the Advisory Board and companyfirmed the order of detention on May 14, 1986 and the Central Governments order of companyfirmation was duly companymunicated on May 26, 1986.
The total value of the seized foreign currency was equivalent to Rs.10,25,000 in round figure.
