9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (11) TMI 681X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vities Act, 1974 (Central Act 52 of 1974) (for short 'the Act') by an order made on 7-5-2002. He is at present confined in Central Prison, Chennai, Tamil Nadu. The gist of the allegations made against the detenu is that the Customs Authorities seized 200 cellphones, 4 cordless phones (base and handset), 4 cordless phones and 350 earphones totally valued at Rs. 13,19,500 from the baggages of the detenu after he came from Singapore and landed at Chennai Anna International Airport along with his baggages on 20-3-2002; that in the declaration filed by the detenu goods valued at Rs. 80,000 had been disclosed, while he was bringing goods valued at Rs. 13,19,500 into India without payment of appropriate customs duty by misdeclaration and concealm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taining authority, the same could be made to the State Government and also to the Government of India, if he so desires; that in the case of the State Government, the representation could be addressed to the Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Public (Law & Order) Department, Chennai or the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue (COFEPOSA Unit), Central Economic Intelligence Bureau, Janpath Bhavan, New Delhi and the same could be forwarded through the Superintendent, Central Prison, Chennai. However, the detenu chose to send the said representation to the President of India on 22-5-2002 which is not at all contemplated and in spite of specific instructions to the detenu, he had chosen to addr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pt of the gist of the translation, it was forwarded to the Ministry of Finance on 18-6-2002, as a COFEPOSA case. There was, thus, no wilful delay on the part of any of the agencies concerned. However, the present arrangements for translation of petitions received in the Rashtrapati Bhavan in various regional languages into English or Hindi are time-consuming. Realising this, we are presently trying to work out an alternative system for the same that will reduce the time required to the minimum and would ensure prompt attention of these petitions. The true copy of D.O. letter No. 9(9)/2002-P(1) dated 14-11-2002 is enclosed herewith and is marked as Annexure R-1." Considering the volume of petitions received in the President's Secretariat a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... detenu is that he had studied only up to 5th class and he does not know English language at all and the document annexed to detention order was not translated in Tamil. In this context the learned counsel for detenu relied upon the decision of this Court in M. Ahamedkutty v. Union of India [1990] 2 SCC 1, that even if the document was within the knowledge of the detenu, the same had to be served upon him. He further relied upon the decision of this Court in Powanammal v. State of T.N. [1999] 2 SCC 413, to the effect that the serving of document in English would not be an effective compliance with the provisions of Article 22 of the Constitution and the documents had to be translated. He submitted that that was a document (document at page N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here must be baggage tag and claim tag; that here in the present case there is no baggage tag or claim tag and thus under these circumstances, there is no iota of evidence to prove that the baggage belonged to the detenu except the statement of the detenu; that thus it was contended that the detenu had only one checked in baggage that is a black colour zipper bag having marking Aero Star and the two baggages vide Grey colour zipper bag having marking as Fly way bag to the future and black colour zipper bag bearing marking as red stone did not belong to him; that the baggage tag and claim tag are the most important documents which prove the possession or ownership of the baggage of a passenger who came by flight; that in the absence of any m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o items, it baffles anyone's imagination as to how the detenu can now contend that there was absolutely no material before the concerned authorities to prove the ownership of the baggages in the absence of baggage tag or claim tag. Further, this stand was not taken by the detenu in his statements made before the Magistrate in the different applications filed in respect of the bail petitions. Thus, we do not think that on this aspect there is no application of mind by the authorities concerned and the decision reported in Chowdarapu Raghunandan v. State of Tamil Nadu [2002] 3 SCC 754, cannot be made use of by the learned counsel for the detenu in this regard. Lastly, it is urged on behalf of the detenu that on a solitary instance without an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
