9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (7) TMI 1350X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5.6.2006 boarded to Singapore by Air India flight IC 557/07.09.2008 at the Anna International Airport Chennai. Entertaining suspicion that he might be carrying Foreign currencies or Indian currencies either in person or in baggage, he was intercepted and on questioning, the officials of the department, not satisfied with the evasive answers, examined the stroller suitcase carried by him which found to contain six sheaves of newspapers kept along with personal effects and on examination, some of the sheaves were found to be pasted together and those sheaves appeared to be bulky. When they were pierced open, it was found to contain Foreign and Indian currencies kept spread inside and in the presence of two independent witnesses, it was found that 15,500 Euros, 39,700 US Dollars, 16,200 British Pound Sterling and Indian ₹ 30,000/- worth ₹ 40,72,878/- were smuggled. It was found that there was violation of Customs Act 1962 read with Regulation 5 of Foreign Exchange Management (Export and Import of Currency) Regulations, 2000. (b) The petitioner gave statement admitting that he carried the currencies for monetary benefits. The currencies worth ₹ 40, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... detenu and recorded by the authority and pointed out that at page No. 37 of the booklet the words and handed over bunch of newspapers was actually inserted which would mean as if the friend of the detenu handed over bunch of newspapers along with the currencies and it was the act of the detenu to put these currencies into the newspapers and pasted them. The learned Counsel also took the Court to the mahazar under which the currencies were actually seized and there also, neither the date of the newspaper nor the fact that the newspapers were from Singapore were mentioned. When a representation was made, this point was specifically raised and the particulars pertaining to the newspaper were asked for but till the end, they have not supplied the same. When the mahazar itself shows the newspapers as item Nos. 1 to 6 and when these particulars were asked for, the department was duty bound to supply the necessary and relevant particulars but failed to do so. This would certainly affect the order under challenge. 5. The learned Counsel would further add that the order came to be passed since the Government has stated its satisfaction that in view of the act committed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at all. In the instant case, the request of the petitioner was not answered by the Advisory Board. Hence, on the ground of denial of right, the order would suffer. In this regard, the learned senior Counsel relied on the decision of the Honourable Apex Court reported in (2009) 2 MLJ (Crl.) 913 Maninder Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu. Under such circumstances, the order is infirm and it has got to be set aside. 8. The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made. 9. Admittedly, the order of detention came to be passed on the aforesaid circumstances. In so as the contentions made by the learned senior Counsel are concerned, the order under challenge is sought to be set aside on four grounds. In so far as the first ground was concerned, as could be seen from the order, the detenu was found in possession of a suit case. On suspicion, it was found that it contained newspaper and the newspaper were found to be pasted and when they were pierce open it found to contain currencies of different countries worth ₹ 40,72,878/-, which according to the department were smu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of himself to move out illegally and hence, the said contention has got to be rejected. Mere impounding of the passport itself will not be a reason which would give way for tilting the order under challenge. 11. The third contention is even assuming the detenu has indulged in smuggling as claimed by the department, it was only a single incident and there is no specific and authenticated material to indicate that the detenu had the propensity and potentiality to continue to indulge in such activities in future and one occasion of smuggling would not be suffice or form a legitimate basis for detaining him under COFEPOSA Act. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Apex Court reported in (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 659 Pooja Batra v. Union of India and Ors. The Court is of the considered opinion that in a given case where propensity and potentiality of the detenu to continue to indulge in such offence are noticed, even a single incident would suffice. Therefore, the Court has to look into the facts and circumstances attendant on the incident which were brought to the notice of the Court. In the instant case, the petitioner was a foreign national and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
