IMPORTANT POINT
The detention order made on 7.5.2002 under Section 3(1)(i) of the COFEPOSA Act, 1974 is valid and is not vitiated on the alleged grounds urged by detenu in this case.

Headnote:(i) Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974-Section 3(1)-Detention order under-Constitution of India-Articles 21, 22 and 32-Delay of 20 days in considering detenu s representation by Government of India in Ministry of Finance as it was made to President of India and not to any Government-Whether delay is properly explained? (Yes) (Para 4)-Case law referred.
       (ii) COFEPOSA Act, 1974-Section 3(1)-Detention order under-Challenged on ground of non-supply of Tamil translation of English documents-Whether sustainable on facts? (No).
       Held : The grievance of the appellant is that Tamil translation of the said document was not given to him. However, when the said document had been filled by the detenu himself wherein he made some entries, non-furnishing of Tamil translation of the same would not result in any non-compliance of a document of which he had no knowledge. If he had made a declaration and same is supplied to him, we do not think that the same can be treated as non-furnishing of a document or furnishing of a document the translation of which is needed. Therefore, the two decisions on which the learned counsel for the detenu has placed reliance will be of no assistance to him. (Para 5)
       (iii) COFEPOSA Act, 1974-Section 3(1)-Detention order under-Challenged on ground of non-application of mind as to ownership of recovered baggages-Whether sustainable? No (See paras 6 and 7).
       (iv) COFEPOSA Act, 1974-Section 3(1)-Detention order under-Solitary instance of evasion of customs duty-Whether can be made ground of detention? (Yes, on the facts and circumstances of the case)-Result-Writ petition dismissed (Constitution of India-Articles 21 and 32).
       Held : The stand of the department is that whether there can be detention on a solitary instance would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case, on the magnitude of the case and other attendant circumstances. In the present case, it is stated that detenu s passport disclosed that he had made several trips abroad and he was not a man of such affluence as to make so many trips out of the country unless they be in the context of his business activities. Therefore, considering the number of trips he had made out of the country, the volume of goods seized now and the prima facie misdeclaration of value, an inference can be drawn that the detenu was a part of bigger network in bringing the goods for commercial distribution inside the country by avoiding the payment of duty. In this background, absence of passport will not be a handicap to the detenu for his activities in the present case in which the fact situation is different from the one available in Rajesh Gulati s case. Nor can we confine the meaning of the word smuggling only to going out of country and coming back with goods which are contraband or to evade duty but may encourage such activities as well by dealing in such goods. Therefore, we do not find any substance in any of the contentions urged on behalf of the detenu and the petition therefore stands dismissed. (Paras 9 and 10)

JUDGMENT

Rajendra Babu. J.-T. Mohamed Nazeer, husband of the petitioner herein, (hereinafter referred to as the detenu ) was detained under Section 3(1)(i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities 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.

2. 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 concealment: that he made a statement on 20.3.2002 before the DRI Officer confirming the seizure of the aforesaid goods and admitting the commission of an offence under the Customs Act. The detenu filed a bail application on March 22, 2002 before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Economic Offences-II, Chennai, claiming that he was innocent and had not committed the alleged offence. The learned Magistrate dismissed the said bail application on 10.4.2002.

3. In the meanwhile, the petitioner wrote a letter to the Finance Secretary, Ministry of Finance, complaining about the ill-treatment meted out to the detenu and the retracted statement made by the detenu before the concerned authorities. The grievance now made is that the order of preventive detention is passed against the detenu as stated earlier in spite of retraction of the earlier statement given to DRI. Now challenging the detention, this writ petition is filed.

4. Firstly, it is contended on behalf of the detenu that a representation was made to the President of India on 22.5.2002 which was received in the President s Secretariat on 29.5.2002. However, since the said representation was in Tamil language, the same was got translated and then forwarded to the concerned Ministry on 18.6.2002. It is urged that the delay that had occurred in sending the representation of the detenu to the Government is inordinate and unexplained. The learned Solicitor General submitted that if he desires to make any representation to the detaining 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 address the said representation to the President of India in order to make a ground of delay later on knowing fully well that in such cases there is bound to be delay in the receipt of the papers by the President s Secretariat and forwarding the same to the concerned Ministry. Therefore, we called for further affidavits from the Central Government in this regard. It is stated in the affidavit filed by the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, as under :-

"As per the record of the President s Secretariat a letter dated 22.5.2002 in a regional language was received on 29.5.2002, there was no indication of the words "COFEPOSA" in the petition. As per the existing practice various letters received in regional

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2002 Supreme(SC) 1150

IMPORTANT POINTThe detention order made on 7.5.2002 under Section 3(1)(i) of the COFEPOSA Act, 1974 is valid and is not vitiated on the alleged grounds urged by detenu in this case.

Cases Referred (6)

IMPORTANT POINT
The detention order made on 7.5.2002 under Section 3(1)(i) of the COFEPOSA Act, 1974 is valid and is not vitiated on the alleged grounds urged by detenu in this case.