Ujjal Singh Avtar Singh vs State of Maharashtra and Others

Desai, J.—In this writ petition an order of detention passed under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, dated 22nd April, 1987, for the detention of this detenu stands impugned. The actual detention of the detenu took place in August, 1988, and on 4th August, 1988 along with the various orders, the material on which they were based were served on him.

The incident on which the order of detention based is one dated 9th November, 1986. On that day the detenu arrived at Sahar Airport from Singapore by Air Canada flight AC-859 and holding Indian Passport. He stood in the red channel. At that time he was called out of the queue. His person was examined by the metal detector and five bars of gold of ten tolas each were found concealed in his rectum. In his statement u/s 108 of the Customs Act the detenu admitted that he had knowingly brought the gold from Singapore and gave the story of being employed by one Harpal Singh of Karol Bagh Market to go to Singapore and bring the gold. Indeed, it was the said Harpalsingh who met the detenu at Singapore and gave the said gold for concealment. The detenu was to be paid Rs. 5,000/- for the said job. The detenu admitted that he had gone to Singapore on four earlier occasions, though according to him, this was the first visit when he had brought gold back to India.

Apart from the question of delay, we do not find any substantial ground taken in the writ petition. The initial delay is only five months between the date of the incident and the date of the passing of the detention order. Perusing the explanation as to the necessity of furnishing the translations of the documents to the detenu, we do not think that the delay is such as can be called gross or can be regarded as of such a magnitude that would call for quashing the order of detention.

Undoubtedly, on the question of delay between making of the order and the actual detention, it is an admitted position that during this period the detenu has availed of the bail and was in Punjab. Judicial notice must be taken of the unsettled conditions in that State which must have rendered the execution of this order of detention extremely difficult, if not impossible. One has also to bear in mind that during this period the detenu chose to remain away from the Magistrate''s court. We are, therefore, not able to give any relief to the detenu on account of the delay in passing the order of detention or further delay between the date of the order of detention and the date of the actual detention. The delays are sufficiently explained.

The other grounds are the usual grounds. One of the grounds is that the copy of the certificate of the analysis furnished to the detenu is very faint. Indeed, at no stage the detenu denied that he brought gold. Therefore, there is no force in that ground. Some alleged discrepancies between the grounds of detention, the statement of the detenu and the show cause notice are alleged. We have gone through the grounds of detention and the statement of the detenu. The grounds of detention are in accordance with the statement of the detenu recorded u/s 108 of the Customs Act and there is no merit in the detenu''s contention that he was unable to make a proper representation or that he was in any way confused. We find no substance in the writ petition and, therefore, direct that the rule issued be discharged.