Delhi High Court
Davinder Singh Dawar @ Goldie @ Goldy vs Union Of India on 22 April, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1997IVAD(DELHI)158, 1997CRILJ3168, 1997(3)CRIMES105, 67(1997)DLT397, 1997(42)DRJ86
Author: S.K. Mahajan
Bench: S.K. Mahajan
JUDGMENT Mahinder Narain, J.
(1) The petitioner Davinder Singh Dawar @ Goldie @ Goldy has been detained by the order of detention dated 8.11.1996. The grounds of detention were also served on Davinder Singh Dawar.
(2) Aggrieved by the detention order, the petitioner has filed this petition for his release.
(3) According to Mr. Ashok Arora, for the purpose of establishing the detention of the petitioner, what needs necessarily to be established with reference to the grounds of detention is: (i) that he was smuggling goods or (ii) abetting the smuggling of goods, or (iii) engaging in transporting or concealing or keeping smuggled goods, or (iv) dealing in smuggled goods otherwise than by engaging in transporting or concealing or keeping smuggled goods, or (v) harbouring persons engaged in smuggling goods or in abetting the smuggling of goods.
(4) Mr. Arora says that in the facts and circumstances of the case, none of these grounds mentioned in Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 are satisfied.
(5) The fact as revealed in the grounds of detention are that four Russian ladies who had arrived on 26.08.1996, were intercepted at the exit gate of Customs Arrival Hall at Indira Gandhi International Airport, while they were passing through the green channel. On a search of their baggage and person, it was revealed that they were wearing cloth belts in which gold was being carried. Two of the ladies were wearing grey coloured cloth belt and two were wearing white coloured cloth belt. The total gold carried by these ladies was 243 gold biscuits and 64 assorted pieces, valued at Rs.1,62,57,696.00 .
(6) According to the grounds of detention, all these ladies had become carriers/smugglers of gold on account of their being asked to carry this gold by one Olga Kaluasheva, who had instructed them to deliver the gold to one Goldy.
(7) All the four ladies had not identified the petitioner Davinder Singh Dawar as Gold to whom the gold was to be delivered, and it had been said that the petitioner was not known to them.
(8) From the facts as revealed in the grounds of detention, it is apparent that the four Russian ladies were carriers of gold or smuggling the gold into India, as they had gone through the green channel at the Air Port, without declaring that they were carrying the gold. In fact it was not discovered until such time the search of their person was carried out at the Air Port.
(9) From the grounds of detention it is, therefore, clear that the petitioner was not smuggling the gold. It is also clear that the petitioner was not abetting or smuggling, as according to the ladies who had smuggled the gold into India, they had brought it at the instance of Olga Kaluasheva. Since the gold had been taken custody of at the Air Port itself, the petitioner cannot be said to be engaged in transporting or concealing or keeping smuggled goods. From a perusal of the grounds of detention in which what has been stated is that the Manager of Hotel Amrapali had identified the photograph of the petitioner as the person called Goldy, who had met the ladies previously. In the absence of the evidence that even previously these ladies were smuggling gold, it cannot be said that the petitioner was dealing in smuggled goods otherwise than by engaging in transporting or concealing or keeping smuggled goods. Inasmuch as there is no averments in the grounds of detention that the petitioner was, in any way, harbouring any of the four ladies either by providing boarding or lodging during their previous stays in India, it cannot be said that the petitioner had harbouring the persons engaged in smuggling goods or in abetting the smuggling of goods.
(10) The grounds of detention say that the petitioner has an inclination and propensity in indulging in smuggling activities in an organized and clandestine manner. From the grounds such a conclusion does not seem to arise as there is no material which will lead to this conclusion mentioned in the grounds of detention.
(11) The conclusion of the detaining authority about propensity of smuggling goods, concealing or keeping smuggled goods, being without any material, the order of detention passed on that basis, has to be quashed and set aside. So ordered.
(12) The petitioner be released forthwith from detention if not required in any other case.