Judgment:
M. Katju, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned detention order dated 23-10-2000 passed under the Cofeposa which is said to have been served on the petitioner on 6-7-2001 vide Annexure-5 to the writ petition.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. A perusal of the grounds of detention which has been annexed to the detention order shows that the allegations against the petitioner are that on 4-3-2000 at about 1 a.m. the Custom and Revenue authorities detained four persons including the petitioner travelling in the down train the Gorakhpur railway station. The petitioner and his associates on questioning accepted that they were secretly carrying foreign currency. They were brought to the office of the Reve-nue Intelligence Department, Gorakhpur where these persons took out two bundles of foreign currency each from their person and placed them before the authorities. This consisted of about 42,000 American dollars. These persons stated that they were taking these foreign currencies to Nepal for exchanging them for gold biscuits to take them to Punjab. They admitted that these foreign currencies have been obtained by smuglling gold biscuits from Nepal to India. They also admitted that earlier also they have committed such offences and have given the gold biscuits secretly to persons in India. They have obtained bail from the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi and have been released and it was apprehended that they will commit the same offence again. Hence the impugned detention order was passed against them.
4. A counter affidavit has been filed in which it has been stated in paragraph 3 that the petitioner has been charged for offences under the Custom Act and has been released by the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 27-6-2000. In paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit it is stated that on 9-4-2001 the petitioner has been awarded three years reigorous imprisonment in the case under the Custom Act but the learned Addi-tional District and Sessions Judge has converted the sentence and petitioner has been released but he is presently in jail in Cofeposa. The petitioner's representation has been rejected by the State Government vide the impugned order dated 13-8-2001 and the Central Government has also rejected his representation.
5. In our opinion, there is no ground for this Court to interfere in the impugned order, as the acts of the petitioner and his associates are so serious that it is necessary to pass the impugned order. The entire economy of the country gets subverted by such acts committed by the petitioner and his associates. Hence we see no reason to interfere with the impugned detention order. Merely because the petitioner has been granted bail it does not mean that the detention order cannot be passed. There is also no delay in deciding his representation.
The petition is hence dismissed.