Surjan Singh vs Union Of India
1991 Latest Caselaw 75 Del

JUDGMENT

V.B. Bansal, J.

(1) By way of this writ petition u/Art. 226/227 read with S. 482 Cr. P.C., Surjan Singh has prayed that the order of detention dated 19.3.90 be quashed and he be set at liberty.

(2) Facts, briefly stated are that on 29.12.89 the petitioner arrived at Indira Gandhi International Airport from New York by Lufthansa Airlines flight and after customs clearance he was going out at & intercepted at Exit Gate. The petitioner on inquiry informed the officials of the Customs Department that he was not carrying any contra-band like gold, wrist watches. He was however searched and 8 pieces of gold biscuits weighing 100 gms. each and 3 biscuits weighing 150 gms. each i.e. total weight 1250 gms. of 24 carats purity were recovered. These were seized by the Custom officer u/S. 110 of the Customs Act with the reasonable belief that the same were liable to confiscation having been imported into India in contravention of the prohibition/restrictions imposed upon the import of gold into India under the F.E.R.A. and Customs Act, 1962.

(3) A number of grounds have been taken by the petitioner in this W. P. Learned counsel for the petitioner, has, however, restricted her arguments only to one ground-non-placing of material documents before the detaining, authority, thereby affecting subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority and thus, the right of the petitioner enshrined u/Art. 22(5) of the Constitution of India has been violated. Elaborating this submission it has been submitted that after his release on bail, application dated 28 2.90 was moved by the petitioner before Additional C M M, New Delhi for permission to go abroad. This application was opposed by the Customs Department by way of filing a reply on 2 3.40. After hearing counsel for the parties, the application was allowed and the petitioner was permitted to go abroad for a period of six months on certain conditions mentioned in the order. These documents, according to the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner bad not been placed before the detaining authority and thus there was suppression of material documents thereby affecting the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. I may note that no counter has been filed by respondents 2 and 3 inspite of opportunities having been granted and in these circumstances there is no option but to hold that the averments made by the petitioner stand admitted and are not controverter. This conclusion is supported by rule-4 Chapter 1V-A of High Court Rules and Orders Volume-V.

(4) The question now for consideration is as to whether these documents are material so as to hold that material documents have been suppressed & this fact has affected the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. This very question came up before a D.B. of this court in Cr. Writ No. 507/88. S. Sarjit Singh Dhaliwal vs. Administrator, decided on 7.12.88. It was held by the court that suppression of such vital document from the detaining authority vitiated the order of detention. Learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 has submitted that there was little time gap between the order dated 14.3.90 passed by the Additional C M M and the order of detention dated 19.3.90 and that may be that there was an omission on the part of the concerned persons to pass on this requisite information to the detaining authority. However, the fact remains that these material documents were not placed before the detaining authority thereby affecting the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority and the petitioner, is thus, entitled to get the benefit of this lapse on the part of the persons concerned. Learned counsel for the respondents have not been able to point out any judgment to the contrary.