1989 (10) TMI 236 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the detention order under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974.
2. Delay in execution of the detention order.
3. Non-placement of relevant material before the detaining authority.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Detention Order:
The petitioner was detained under Sections 3(i)(iii) and 3(i)(iv) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, on allegations of assisting in the possession, transportation, and sale of smuggled gold. The detention order aimed to prevent the petitioner from engaging in such activities. The court upheld the validity of the detention order, finding sufficient corroborative material, including the recovery of visiting cards and a rough road sketch, linking the petitioner to the smuggling activities.

2. Delay in Execution of the Detention Order:
The petitioner argued that the detention order was invalid due to a delay of 7 1/2 months in its execution. However, the court noted that the delay must be satisfactorily explained. In this case, the Superintendent of Police reported that the petitioner was absconding, and efforts were made to trace him. The authorities even resorted to Section 7(1)(b) of the COFEPOSA Act. The court found the delay to be satisfactorily explained and thus, did not vitiate the detention order.

3. Non-placement of Relevant Material Before the Detaining Authority:
The petitioner contended that the bail application and the order passed thereon were not placed before the detaining authority, which could vitiate the detention order. The court, however, found that the bail application did not contain an express retraction of the petitioner's statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act. Moreover, there was sufficient independent corroborative material, such as the recovery of visiting cards and the rough road sketch, which established the petitioner's connection to the smuggling activities. Therefore, the failure to place the bail application before the detaining authority did not affect the validity of the detention order.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the detention order and the continued detention of the petitioner. The rule was discharged, and no order as to costs was made.