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

1990 Supreme(Bom) 218

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(NAGPUR BENCH)
A.A. Desai and B.U. Wahane, JJ.
Rampurwalah Sharafaali ..... Petitioner.
Versus
L. Hminglianna and another ..... Respondents.
Criminal Writ Petition No. 122 of 1989, decided on 27-6-1990.
Advocates appeared:
S.A. Jaiswal, for the petitioner.
H. Ahmed, Asstt. Govt. Pleader, for the respondent.
S.V. Natu, for Union of India.

Headnote:Section 3-Order of detention-Challenged-Grounds-Satisfaction of detaining authority-Grounds not supply in language known to petitioner petitioner-as blind and could not understand grounds-Authority satisfied itself that petitioners detention-as necessary to prevent him from indulging in pre-judicial activities in future-Order and grounds as also other documents supplied to detenu in Hindi a language known to petitioner-Detenu made statement before customs other than be bad studied upto SSC Also proved that detenu bad visited gulf country on earlier occasions also-Hence it could be said that detenu-as partially blind person having vision to perform his usual functions Order and grounds-ere read over and explained to detenu by competent authority-Held-Having regard to facts and circumstances of case, detention as legal.

JUDGMENT - B.U. WAHANE, J.: ---The purpose of enactment of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act is to deal effectively with persons engaged in smuggling and foreign exchange racketering who, owing to their large resources and influence have been possing a serious threat to the economy and thereby to the security of the Nation. The enactment is preventive and not punitive. The provisions of preventive detention are extraordinary in nature. The detenue before us was detained under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (in short COFEPOSA) by the Government of Maharashtra by its order dated 4-5-1989 at Annexure-I. The order was passed by Mr. L. Hmiglianna, Secretary (Preventive Detention), to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department and Detaining Authority, who authenticated the said order on behalf of the State Government. The impugned order has been made with a view to prevent the detenu from engaging in smuggling activities.

2. By this petition, the detention has been challenged on certain grounds. Shri S.A. Jaiswal, learned Counsel appearing for the detenue submitted that before a person is detained, he is to be given an opportunity of hearing and representing his case. The object of the enactment is that the freedom of the people from lawlessness, tyranny and oppressions has to be zealously guarded.

3. Facts, as emerged, are that on 10-6-88, the Customs Officers, on suspicion intercepted the petitioner at Sahar Airport, Bombay, after the arrival of Expirate Flight No. EK 500 from Dubai to Bombay. The personal search was conducted in the presence of two panchas which resulted in the recovery of 9 gold bars, each weighing 10 Tolas. All the gold bars were of foreign markings. These 9 gold bars were found concealed in a specially made cloth belt tied around the waist of the petitioner. In all, the 9 gold bars weighed 1049.40 grams and were valued at Rs.1,94,139 (IMV) and Rs.3,37,906.80 (LMV). The bars were seized by the Customs Officers under the Customs Act.

4. While the search was in progress, one Abbasbhai Haiderali Kitabjiwala, the uncle of the petitioner, was also brought in the room where the search was in progress. Shri Abbasbhai Kitabjiwala also was intercepted by the Customs Officer while he was going out of the Customs Arrival Hall. He, too, arrived by the same flight by which the petitioner had landed at the Sahar Airport. In search of his person 17 gold bars of 10 Tolas each were found concealed in a white cloth belt tied around his waist. all the 17 gold bars were seized being of foreign make.

5. Other documents like passport were seized from the petitioner. On 10-6-1988 itself, the statement of the petitioner was recorded by the Customs Officer and panchanama was effected of the search. In the statement, the petitioner accepted the possession of the contraband foreign make articles but he stated that it was given to him by someone at Dubai to be handed over at the Sahar Airport to a person who will disclose his identity. The petitioner was booked under the provisions of the Customs Act and was produced before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Bombay. On 24.6.1988 the petitioner was released on bail.

6. The detaining authority on considering the material placed before it satisfied itself that the petitioner's detention is necessary to prevent him from indulging in the prejudicial activities in future. On 4-5-1989 the impugned order under challenge was passed and the order at Annexure-I was served upon the petitioner together with the grounds of detention vide Annexure-I along with the copies of the statements and documents, the basis of his consideration and satisfaction.

7. The petitioner was informed that he has a right to make a representation to the State Government against his order of detention and if he is desirous to make such representation, he should address to representation to the Minister of






















































































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
whatsapp-icon Back to top