9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (12) TMI 1221X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... son of the appellant, Nazhar Ahmed by name, was detained under the provisions of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA) by the order of the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government, Home Department dated 20th January, 2010. As per the case put up against the detenu, he had been arrested at the Bangalore International Airport after he had been found in possession of 4.35 kgs. of Gold Jewellery which he had not declared to the Customs. He moved an application for bail which was rejected by the Special Court for Economic Offences. He thereafter filed an appeal before the City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore (which was numbered as Criminal Miscellaneous No.4858 of 2009) which was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d on bail the detenu could continue with his smuggling activities without even travelling abroad was a possibility, and as such, the detention order was justified. The writ petitions were, accordingly, dismissed. 3. Mr. K.K. Mani, the learned counsel for the appellants has raised substantially one plea before us. He has pointed out that this court had upheld the vires of several preventive detention statutes primarily on the ground that adequate safeguards for the protection of the rights of a detenu had been provided while noticing that smuggling activities by individuals was a matter of deep concern to India and its economy, but if the procedural safeguards were in any manner not observed, the detention order would fail. The learned co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ggling activities within India, though he could not go abroad his passport having been seized. It was observed thus : 15. xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx The conclusion that despite the absence of his passport the appellant could or would be able to continue his activities is based on no material but was a piece of pure speculation on the part of the detaining authority. These findings are sufficient to invalidate the impugned detention order and it is not necessary to consider the other issues raised by the appellant. This opinion has been further fortified by this court in Gimik Piotr s case (supra). In para 32, it has been held as under : 32. In the present case, the detention order was passed under Section 3(1) (i) of COFEP ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
