SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1992 Supreme(SC) 738

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. R. PANDIAN AND R. M. SAHAI, JJ.
Smt. Hawabi Sayed Arif Sayed Hanif, Appellant/Petitioner
Versus
L. Hmingliana and others, Respondents.
Criminal Appeal No. 615 of 1992 (arising out of S.L.P. (Cri.) No. 743 of 1992) and Writ Petn. (Cri.) No. 76 of 1992
Decided on 14-10-1992.

Advocates:
A.S.BHASME, ASHOK BHAN, K.T.S.Tulsi, P.PARMESHVARAN, R.K.JAIN, R.S.M.VERMA, SHAKEEL AHMAD SYED, V.N.GANPULE

Headnote:(i) Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 - Sections 3(1) and 9 - Detention u/s 3(1) - Challenged on the ground of delayed communication of the declaration made u/s. 9(1) - There is no statutory period specified U/S 9(1) for serving the declaration to the detenu Alleged delay of 21 days in service of the declaration to the detenu is very satisfactorily explained - The detenu had sufficient time of 11 days to make his representation in connection with his declaration also - No prejudice having been cause, the detenu cannot make any legitimate grievance in this connection.

       Held: The submission made by Mr. R.K. Jain that the order of declaration should have been communicated to the detenu within a period of 5 weeks is inconceivable and that does not stand for reason; because section 9(1) itself gives a maximum period of 5 weeks for making the declaration. Therefore, a copy of the declaration order could be served only after the declaration has been made. Suppose in a case where a declaration has been made on the last date of the 5 weeks period, it could be served on the detenu only on the expiry of 5 weeks. Section 9(1) speaks of only the maximum period of making the declaration but not the maximum period for communicating the same to the detenu. In fact, as we have already stated that there is no statutory period, specified under section 9(1) for serving the declaration to the detenu. Hence, this submission that it was served only after expiry of 5 weeks has to be rejected as devoid of any merit. (Para 10)

JUDGMENT

S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN, J.:—Leave granted in S.L.P.

1A. The above appeal and the Writ Petition are filed by Smt. Hawabi Sayed Arif Hanif, who is the wife of the detenu, Sayed Arif Sayed Hanif, assailing the validity of the order of detention dated 23-10-90 passed against the detenu, by the first respondent (Secretary, Preventive Detention, to the Government of Maharashtra) in exercise of the powers conferred on him under sub-sec. (1) of S. 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) with a view to preventing him from smuggling of goods.

2. The factual matrix of the case in a short compass can be stated as follows :

In pursuance of the information collected by the officers of the Directorate of Revenue, Intelligence, a surveillance was maintained by the officers on Coast Guard Vessel O.G. VIGRAH in the sea off Karwar for a suspect Arab Dhow carrying foreign silver to smuggle into India. During surveillance around 23.00 hours on 25-9-90, the officers sighted an Arab Dhow about 3 to 5 nautical miles away from Karwar harbour. On suspicion the officers signalled with loud speakers and search lights to stop the said Dhow, but instead of stopping, the Dhow started speeding away in the opposite direction. Seeing this, the officers fired in the air and warned the crew on the Arab Dhow to bring it alongside the ship. Thereafter the Dhow stopped and came alongside the coast guard ship and the officers from the coast guard ship boarded the Dhow. On examination, the officers found 150 packages containing contraband silver ingots on board. There were nine persons on board. The silver ingots were seized and those nine persons were escorted by the coast guard ship to Mole Station, Ballard Pier, Bombay. The silver packages were unloaded in the presence of 2 panchas and the 9 persons were arrested. The total quantity of the contrabands was weighing 4738.901 kgs. and valued at Rs. 3,31,72,507/-. Besides the contrabands on a rummage the officers recovered 17 empty unused cloth jackets generally used for packing contraband gold with 4 documents and 11 seaman cards from the Dhow. The officers seized the silver in the reasonable belief that it was smuggled into India and hence liable for confiscation under the Customs Act, 1962. The other articles were also seized.

3. Separate statements were recorded from all those 9 persons under S. 108 of the Customs Act. None of them had any document to prove the illicit import of the seized silver. Of the 9 persons, one by Name, Sajid Ali Abdul Rehman Qureshi stated in his statement that in the first week of July, 1990 he met his Pakistani friend Usman at Haji Ali and requested him a job. Two days thereafter he met him while in the company of the detenu. The detenu offered him a job of piloting a vessel from Dubai to Indian coast carrying contrabands, which he accepted on promise of a handsome amount. The said Sajid met the detenu at the latters residence and handed over his passport to the detenu two or three days thereafter. The detenu handed over his passport and airlines ticket. He also gave some Dollars and Indian currency. As instructed by the detenu Sajid went to Dubai and met the detenu in Hotel Orient; that the detenu taking Sajid went to Hamaria Port and boarded a vessel. At that time Sajid found silver bricks packed in gunny bags being loaded on the vessel. The detenu gave a walkie-talkie and gave his coded words. On 19-7-90 the detenu saw Sajid and others off the shore with his instructions to meet him. He also gave Sajid a telephone number 225767 for contacting Usman on his return for delivering the silver consignment. It was only during the import of contrabands Sajid was caught along with 8 others. On the basis of the above statement, the detenu was apprehended by the Revenue Intelligence. When the detenu was interrogated, he admitted his involvement and also gave information about his past activities of smuggli
























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top