9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (6) TMI 844X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y;32 (for short Detaining authority),in exercise of powers under Section 3 (1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (52 of 1974) (hereinafter referred to as the said "COFEPOSA Act" for the sake of brevity) with a view to prevent the detenue in future from "smuggling goods" 3. After the detenue was detained, the grounds of detention have been served on him. Even from the fair reading of grounds of detention what can be discerned is that the detaining authority thought it essential to issue detention order in question against the detenue being subjectively satisfied that it was imperative to pass such order with a view to prevent the detenue from smuggling goods in future. In other words, the det ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... backdrop, two fold argument has been urged before us. The first is that the subjective satisfaction has been reached by the detaining authority on the basis of solitary instance referred to in the grounds of detention against the petitioner. That is not enough to invoke section 3 (1)(i) of the Act. The second point is that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority is vitiated because it has not considered the efficacy of the fact that the passport of the petitioner has already been taken in custody by the Customs Department as a condition for grant of bail. That completely rules out the possibility of the detenue traveling abroad and indulge in smuggling goods in future. To buttress these submissions, reliance has b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ra). 6. Learned A.P.P., however, was at pains to persuade us that the Court ought to take into account the statements of the detenue given to the authority while in custody under Section 108 of Customs Act, 1962, which would show that the petitioner was carrying substantial Indian currency to the extent of ₹ 38 lakhs with an intention to smuggle the same outside India and was part of the conspiracy along with Mujib Keppa from Bhatkal from Karnataka. As aforesaid, the subjective satisfaction has been recorded only in respect of ground of smuggling goods in future, under Section 3 (1) (i) of the Act. None other grounds weighed with the detaining authority for issuing detention order, against the detenue in this case. That is evident fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y to issue order of detention. The Apex Court has noticed that those decisions were on the basis of other grounds provided under Section 3 (1) of the COFEPOSA Act and not restricted to section 3 (1)(i) as in the case of Gimik Piotr's case. Even in the present case, the detention order has been passed on the basis of subjective satisfaction regarding ground only under Section 3 (1)(i) of the COFEPOSA Act. Taking any view of the matter, therefore, this petition ought to succeed. 8. In the result, the petition is allowed. Same is made absolute in terms of prayer clause 7 (a) which reads thus: "That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of habeas corpus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
