2017 (4) TMI 12 - HC - Customs

Smuggling of foreign currency and gold - detention of person - baggage rules - whether the detention of detenue justified? - Held that - the confessional statement and other independent facts including seizure and recovery of important documents and currency notes and nature and manner of activities in which the detenue Fazal was involved have deleterious effect on the national economy thereby adversely affecting the interest and the security of the State. It is these things that have been foundation for forming the subjective satisfaction for the order of detention. As held by the Apex Court in the case of PRAKASH CHANDRA MEHTA Vs. COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA & OTHERS 1985 (4) TMI 280 - SUPREME COURT , particularly in paragraphs 78 to 82 and in the wake of the overwhelming materials gathered in the course of investigation by the authorities in the form of seizure of currency notes and several other incriminating materials, the need to protect the society from social menace by detaining such persons engaged in smuggling and related activities which have adverse effect on the national economy aimed at disrupting the economy has to be kept in mind along with the all important fact that procedural safeguards have to be ensured and the power conferred on the authorities is not casually exercised so that fundamental freedom guaranteed to the citizens is not undermined - Therefore, by adopting such pragmatic and realistic approach, we have carefully considered the entire materials and are of the view that exercise of power by the authorities, in the instant case, has been strictly as per the safeguards provided. Detention upheld - petition dismissed - decided against detenue.

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the detention order under Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act.
2. Involvement of the detenue in smuggling activities.
3. Procedural compliance by the detaining authority.
4. Subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority.
5. Impact of the detenue's activities on national security and economy.
6. Validity of the confessional statements and other evidence.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Detention Order under Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act:
The petitioner challenged the detention order dated 07.06.2016 passed by the Additional Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka, Home Department, under Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act. The order aimed to prevent the detenue from committing acts of smuggling foreign currency and gold.

2. Involvement of the Detenue in Smuggling Activities:
The facts reveal that specific intelligence was gathered by the DRI, Bengaluru Zone Unit, leading to the interception of two individuals at Kempegowda International Airport on 09.12.2015. These individuals were found carrying foreign currency equivalent to ?54,20,792.30/- and ?1,04,35,812.30/- respectively. Investigations indicated that the detenue had provided the currency and instructions for its smuggling to Dubai. Additionally, the detenue was involved in earlier smuggling attempts and was previously arrested for possessing fake Indian currency.

3. Procedural Compliance by the Detaining Authority:
The court found that the Additional Chief Secretary had followed all procedural safeguards prescribed under the Constitution of India, particularly Article 22(5). The procedural compliance was meticulously observed, ensuring that the fundamental freedoms guaranteed to the citizens were not undermined.

4. Subjective Satisfaction of the Detaining Authority:
The court reviewed the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, which was based on the involvement of the detenue in smuggling activities. The detaining authority relied on evidence such as the detenue's travel details, cash transactions, and the seizure of foreign currency and gold. The court held that the subjective satisfaction was well-founded on the materials and evidence gathered.

5. Impact of the Detenue's Activities on National Security and Economy:
The court emphasized that the detenue's activities had a deleterious effect on the national economy and adversely affected the interest and security of the State. The involvement in smuggling and handling of fake currency posed a significant threat to the economic fabric of the country, warranting preventive detention to protect society from such social menace.

6. Validity of the Confessional Statements and Other Evidence:
The court noted that the confessional statements were not the sole basis for the detention order. There were several independent facts, including the seizure of currency and important documents, which corroborated the detenue's involvement in smuggling activities. The detenue had not retracted his voluntary statement, further weakening his case.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the detention order. It concluded that the detaining authority had scrupulously followed all procedural safeguards and that the subjective satisfaction was based on substantial evidence. The detenue's activities had serious ramifications on national security and the economy, justifying the preventive detention under the COFEPOSA Act.

← Previous Next →