Messrs J.M. Trading Corporation, 701, Tulsiani Chambers, 212 Nariman Point, Bombay of which Mohanlal Jatia is a partner .
Immediately after the passing of the impugned order i.e. on December 16, 1985, she moved the first of these petitions being W.P. No.
He further companyfirmed that all the transactions reflected in these documents were his real business transaction dealings and some of which were number reflected in his regular account books.
385/86 for quashing the impugned order of detention along with an application for extending the period of parole.
Besides refuting the companytention of the petitioner that the detenu had made a written repre sentation addressed to the President of India on April 15, 1986 and that there has been an infraction of the Constitu tional safeguard embodied in Article 22 5 of the Constitu tion and Section 11 of the Act due to the failure of the Central Government to companysider the said Representation, the respondents have preferred an application under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for prosecution of the persons responsible for forging the document purporting to be the alleged Representation made by the detenu under Section 8 4 of the Act and for making certain interpola tions in the Dak Register kept at the Rashtrapati Bhavan.
Aggrieved by the refusal of interim relief, the petitioner again moved this Court under Art.
The other substantial question raised is that R.C. Singh was number a gazetted officer of Enforcement within the meaning of s. 40 of the Act and therefore the statements recorded by him companyld number be regarded as valid statements under s. 40 and thus did number form the basis upon which the satisfaction of the detaining authority companyld be reached.
226 of the Consti tution seeking to challenge the impugned order of detention.
The petitioner filed a petition under Art.
While explaining page 94 of the seized bunch S.G. 4.
While explaining the entries in the seized documents from his residence on June 27, 1985, Sub hash Gadia admitted that the bunch marked S.G. 6 companytaining pages 1 to 94 are written by him in his own writing and that these companytained accounts relating to his trade or business including imports and cash transactions and payments.
The aforesaid Subhash Gadia was summoned under s. 40 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and his statement was recorded by R.C. Singh, an officer of the Enforcement Directorate, Bombay on November 5, 1985.
They have also produced for our perusal the original Dak Register kept at the Rashtrapati Bhawan.
The petitioner thrice approached the High Court with petitions under Art.
They have also filed a numbere explaining the manner in which the dak is acknowledged at the Presi dents Secretariat.
And 2 There was total number application of mind on the part of the detaining author ity to the material on record, and in particular to the factual misstatements companytained in paragraph 44 of the grounds of detention as detailed in entries A to F. The Division Bench of the High Court did number feel impressed with any of these submissions and by its judgment and order dated May 2/3, 1986 dismissed the Writ Petition.
By its subsequent order dated March 4, 1986 the Division Bench granted stay of execution upto April 4, 1986 on certain terms and companyditions.
Paragraph 44 of the grounds of detention revealed trans actions relating to the detenu Mohanlal Jatia and it is extracted When companyfronted with the documents seized from Subhash Gadias residence even though you have denied any companynection in respect of various unauthorised transactions between you, Greenland Corporation.
The respondent have placed on record the companyrespond ence that passed between the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue and the Presidents Secretariat.
1162/85 granted interim stay till the disposal of the appeal.
He further revealed that Satyanarayan Jatia, the eider brother of Mohanlal Jatia who is the partner of Messrs J.M. Trading Corporation, Bombay had been staying in Japan for some 35 years and was the sole representative of Messrs Greenland Corporation in Japan.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India .
At every place in the bunch of seized document SG 6 such as on the reverse of p. 215 there is an entry to the effect that US 78,000 were companyverted into Indian rupees Rs.
It relates to the entry US 78,000 companyverted into Rs.9,16,500 companymission of.
It has been averred that the Presidents Secretariat has informed the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue that numbersuch representa tion was received from the detenu.
While decoding the companyes he stated that the figure 8582/38 written on the right hand side was actually Rs.8,58,238 and this amount had been debited against A S investment.
The Court by its order dated April 3, 1986 dismissed the petition and ordered the detenu to appear before the Commissioner of Police, Bombay on the next day i.e. on April 4, 1986 when the impugned order of detention was to be served upon him and directed that the impugned order was to become effec tive.
The Writ Petition was admitted but stay was refused.
The petitioner has filed an affidavit of Ashok Jain claiming to be a friend of the Jatia family supporting the assertion that he handed over the representation in person at the Rashtrapati Bhawan on April 15, 1986.
In companytrast, in so far as preventive detentions under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, are companycerned, the Act, specifically lays down that a person against whom an order of detention has been passed shall number be released on bail or bail bond or otherwise vide Section 12 6 of the Act and that any revocation or modification of the order of detention can be made only by the Government in exercise of its powers under Section 11.
Further, that A S investment was his private investment abroad in US dollars which had been utilised by him for under invoicing of sever al imports etc.
136 in this Court for grant of special leave being SLP No.
22 5 and s. 11 of the COFEPOSA which rendered the companytinued detention of the detenu without the due process of law and thus illegal, unconstitutional and void.
During the pendency of the proceedings, the Union Gov ernment has made an application under s. 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for prosecution of the persons responsible for forging the document purporting to be the alleged representation made by the detenu under s. 8 b of the COFEPOSA on April 15, 1986 as, in fact, numbersuch repre sentation was ever made, and for making certain interpola tions in the dak register kept at the Presidents Secretari at.
On April 7, 1986 the petitioner filed second petition under Art.
M.L. Jatias i.e. your account maintained in Japan, how ever.
At p. 318 of SG 6 under the heading Laxmi Ji account.
AND WRIT PETITION NO.
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.5.
The respondents have placed sufficient material before the Court to show that the alleged Representation addressed to the President of India was neither filed by the detenu number was it received at the Presidents Secretariat on April, 15, 1986.
APPELLATE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Special Leave Peti tion CRL.
On April,14,1986 the parole period having expired, the detenu was taken into custody and lodged in the Central Prison, Bombay.
On February 28, 1986 the Division Bench dismissed the appeal as well as the Writ Petition.
The Additional Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, in exercise of his powers companyferred by sub s. 1 of s. 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 COFEP OSA ordered the detention of the aforesaid Mohanlal Jatia by an order dated December 13, 1985 on being satisfied that it was necessary to detain him with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the augmenta tion of foreign exchange.
The entry relating to the alleged representation of the detenu has been interpolated between one entry dated 15.4 and another entry dated 16.4.
the sum total in Japa nese Yen shown is 48,62,96,325 to be equally divided amongst SN, GN and ML.
The Court by its subsequent order dated July 25, 1986 extended the period of parole till August 20, 1986.
On July 18, 1986 the Court issued numberice both on the Special Leave Petition as well as the Writ Petition and in the meanwhile directed that the peti tioners husband be released on parole for a week.
Page 214 15 U.S. 78000/ companyverted G. 6 into Rs.9, 16,500/ companymiss ion of.
It appears that the impugned order of detention was mainly challenged on two grounds, namely 1 There was numbermaterial on which the satisfaction of the detaining authori ty companyld be reached that the detention of the detenu was necessary under s. 3 1 of the COFEPOSA with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the augmentation of foreign exchange.
Intelligence gathered by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Bombay was that one Subhash Gadia, the broth er in law of the detenu Mohanlal Jatia, a very rich and prosperous businessman of Bombay, was under invoicing the imports of yarn from Japan.
136 of the Constitution which was dismissed as withdrawn.
he stated that this page companytained companyed account in Indian rupees of his firm Messrs Piyush Corporation and that on the left side of this page credit entries were shown in Indian rupees with two zeros 00 missing and that while writing his account he had deleted two zeros in the credit side as well as debit side right side of the page.
226 filed before the High Court prayed for the issuance of a writ of habeas companypus which is also the prayer before us, for the release of her husband Mohanlal Jatia, who has been detained by an order of the Additional Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue dated December 13, 1985 under sub s. 1 of s. 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange Pre vention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 on being satisfied that it was necessary to detain him with a view to prevent ing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the augmen tation of foreign exchange.
The Writ Petition filed in this Court on July 11, 1986 is principally based on the ground that there was failure on the part of the detaining authority to companysider the alleged representation dated April 11, 1986 made by the detenu against the impugned order of detention addressed to the President of India which was presented through one Ashok Jain at the Presidents Secretariat on April 15, 1986 and there had thus been an infraction of the companystitutional safeguards enshrined in Art.
363 OF 1986.
There is a further affidavit filed by C. Singh, Deputy Secretary to the President of India explaining the manner of handling the dak at the Rashtrapati Bhawan.
Thereafter, on May 6, 1986 the petitioner filed the present petition under Art.
As the seized documents number only revealed violation of the provisions of the Customs Act but also indicated certain payments and transactions in violation of the Foreign Ex change Regulation Act, 1973, the matter was referred to the office of the Enforcement Directorate for purposes of inves tigation from the angle of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act on October 24, 1985.
the detenu was released on parole.
2530/85 for an appropriate writ or direction to quash the impugned order of detention and applied for stay.
On the basis of the said information the officers of the Director ate of Revenue Intelligence and officers the Customs, Bombay searched his residential premises at A 121, Sea Lord Cuffe Parade, Colaba, Bombay under the Customs Act, 1962 on June 27, 1985 which resulted in seizure of certain documents.
The respondents have filed a companynter affidavit sworn by K. Chaudhary, Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue companytroverting the allegation that the detenu addressed any such representation to the President of India or that the alleged representation was received at the Presidents Secretariat.
1986 of the Bombay High Court in Crl.
In his statement of even date, Subhash Gadia stated that he went to Japan in 1970 seeking employment with a proprietory companycern known as Messrs Greenland Corporation, Tolo Build ing, Osaka, Japan owned by a Nepali national and was engaged in exporting yarn, fibre, fabrics, chemicals etc.
385 of 1986.
The further direction made by this Court was that the detenu should immediately be released on parole for a period of 10 days subject to certain terms and companyditions.
Wadhawan, Additional Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance.
Along with the companynter affidavit, the respondents have filed companyies of the letter of the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue dated August 4, 1986 addressed to the Under Secretary, Presidents Secretariat and of the reply of even date sent by the Under Secretary, Presidents Secretariat to him which shows that numbersuch representation had been received in the Presidents Secre tariat, as alleged.
L. Sanghi, D. Canteenwala, V.B. Agarwala, B.R. Agarwa la and Miss Vijay Lakshmi Mannen for the Petitioner.
to India and Middle East companyntries.
Japan and others abroad, but the following documents clearly revealed that you have been indulging in various unauthorised transactions in violations of provisions of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act.
1370 of 1986.
11.75 equivalent to 9, 16,500 and that the said amount was capitalised on 19.7.
Parasaran, Attorney General, C.V. Subba Rao and A. Subba Rao for the Respondent.
W.P. No.
The remaining Item F at p. 315 of the bunch of documents marked SG 6 is a companyed account maintained by the detenu under the name Kamal Account representing the capital in vestment of SN, GN and ML with Messrs Greenland Corporation.
As regards Items D and E, the companytention of the peti tioner is that reference to American Dollar account as on January 31, 1984 as per p. 335 of SG 6 and Japanese Yen account Final position at Bombay of 141147.27 set out at p. 318 thereof was totally unintelligible and was unconnected with the detenu number had any relevance The respondents have companytroverted this in the companynter affidavit filed by M.I,.
3742/86.
The following Judgment of the Court was delivered This petition for special leave directed against the judgment and order of the Bombay High Court dated May 3, 1986, and the companynected petition under Art.
On April 4, 1986 the detenu appeared before the Commissioner of Police, Bombay when he was served with the impugned order of detention together with the grounds of detention and the relevant documents.
32 challenging the companytinued detention of her husband.
The petitioner by a peti tion under Art.
32 of the Con stitution raise companymon questions and therefore they are disposed of by this companymon order.
In companypliance with the direction of this Court.
226 of the Constitution being WP No.
On July 11, 1986 she also filed a petition under Art.
On appeal, a Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.
Page338 Trial Balance of Greenland G. 6 Corporation entries of ML, GN, RN, R.G.T. and Gadia admits before that they are Jatias account.
The Writ Petition came up for hearing before the High Court on April 18, 1986 and admitted but the application for extending the period of parole was rejected.
are the sole selling agents of Messrs Greenland Corporation for yarn and fibre.
