B. R. GAVAI, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, K. V. VISWANATHAN
Shabna Abdulla – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. The present appeal challenges the final judgment and order dated 24th January 2023 in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 596 of 2022, passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala, whereby the High Court dismissed the petition filed by the appellant, who is the sister-in-law of the detenue and thereby upheld the detention order dated 24th August, 2021 issued against the detenue (one Abdul Raoof) under Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange & Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as “COFEPOSA”) and its confirmation vide order dated 24th May, 2022.
2. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present appeal are as given below.
2.1 On 20th April, 2021, the unaccompanied baggage of one Althaf Moosan Mukri was checked and inside the compressor of a refrigerator amongst the baggage, contraband gold weighing 14,763.30 grams valued at Rs. 7,16,16,768/- was found and seized.
2.2 Statements of co-accused persons were recorded, whereby they admitted that the detenue who was residing in Dubai, UAE, was running a cargo handling and forwarding business and was scouting passengers who had unaccompanied cargo to be sent to India. It w
Nushath Koyamu vs. Union of India and Others
Atma Ram Vaidya vs. State of Bombay
Reshmi vs. Union of India [Para 10] – Referred
Hajira N.K. vs. Union of India
Preventive detention – There cannot be undue discrimination in matter of appreciation of evidence while deciding validity of detention.
Point of Law : Nature and extent of right to representation under Article 22(5) of Constitution of India has been a subject for serious deliberation for long.
Point of Law : Law cannot be subverted, particularly in the area of personal liberty in order to prevent a smuggler from securing his release from detention, because whatever is the law laid down by ....
A detenu under COFEPOSA has no inherent right to legal representation in Advisory Board proceedings unless the Detaining Authority is represented, and failure to furnish all relied upon documents doe....
Preventive detention – Detenu has right to be furnished with grounds of detention along with documents so referred to or relied on – Failure or even delay in furnishing those documents would amount t....
Preventive detention orders are invalidated if the grounds for detention are communicated in illegible or untranslated documents, infringing the detenu's constitutional rights to make effective repre....
Requirement under Section 8 of the COFEPOSA Act in the background of the Constitutional provision is for a reference to an Advisory Board duly constituted and it is not the petitioner's case and the ....
The illegibility of relied upon documents (RUDs) vitiates the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, rendering the detention order invalid.
Detention - statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act cannot be used for passing detention under the provisions of the COFEPOSA Act.
Action under Section 7 of COFEPOSA Act is not mandatory, failure to take action under section gives scope for doubt regarding assertion that detenu had absconded or concealed himself to avoid arrest.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.