2009 (7) TMI 1350 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of the detention order u/s COFEPOSA Act.
2. Non-disclosure of newspaper particulars.
3. Impounding of passport and its impact on future activities.
4. Single incident of smuggling as a basis for detention.
5. Denial of legal assistance before the Advisory Board.

Summary:

1. Legitimacy of the Detention Order u/s COFEPOSA Act:
The petitioner challenged the detention order dated 4.11.2008 issued u/s COFEPOSA Act. The Court reviewed the affidavit, grounds of attack, and all materials including the detention order. The petitioner was intercepted on 7.9.2008 at Chennai Airport with a suitcase containing foreign and Indian currencies worth Rs. 40,72,878/-, which were smuggled. The detenu admitted to carrying the currencies for monetary benefits. The authorities recommended invoking COFEPOSA Act to prevent future activities, and the Advisory Board affirmed the detention order.

2. Non-disclosure of Newspaper Particulars:
The petitioner argued that the newspapers containing the currencies were from Singapore, but this fact was not mentioned in the records. The Court found no merit in this contention, stating that the non-mentioning of the date or origin of the newspapers was of no consequence. The Court rejected the argument that the insertion of words in the statement indicated interpolation.

3. Impounding of Passport and Its Impact on Future Activities:
The petitioner contended that since his passport was impounded, he could not indulge in future smuggling activities. The Court rejected this argument, stating that the detenu could still commit acts of abetment or move out illegally. Mere impounding of the passport was not sufficient to tilt the order under challenge.

4. Single Incident of Smuggling as a Basis for Detention:
The petitioner argued that a single incident of smuggling did not justify detention u/s COFEPOSA Act. The Court held that even a single incident could suffice if the detenu had the propensity and potentiality to continue such activities. The Court noted that the petitioner, a foreign national, was involved in smuggling currencies from different countries, indicating a likelihood of future offenses. Thus, the Court rejected this ground.

5. Denial of Legal Assistance Before the Advisory Board:
The petitioner claimed that his request for legal assistance before the Advisory Board was denied. The Court noted that the representation for legal assistance was made to the State Government, not directly to the Advisory Board. The Court held that the detenu should have requested legal assistance when appearing before the Advisory Board. Since no such request was made, the Court found no merit in this contention.

Conclusion:
The Court dismissed the Habeas Corpus Petition, finding no merit in the grounds raised by the petitioner.