IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
A.S. OKA & A.K. MENON, JJ.
Mohammad Bilal Yunus Shah – Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra Through Addl. Chief Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra Home Department (Special) & Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 4294 of 2014
Decided on : 27-01-2015
COFEPOSA - Detention Order - Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA) - Section 3(1) - Summary: The court discussed the detention order issued under COFEPOSA, which was challenged on various grounds including the failure to provide translated versions of the order of detention and grounds of detention in a language known to the detenu, and the non-consideration of the fact that the detenu's passport had been retained by the Sponsoring Authority. The court found that the failure to provide translated copies of the order of detention and grounds of detention violated the detenu's right to make an effective representation, and the detention order was not sustainable as it violated the mandate of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.
Fact of the Case:
The detenu was detained for smuggling gold into India. The detention order was challenged on the grounds of failure to provide translated versions of the order of detention and grounds of detention in a language known to the detenu, and the non-consideration of the fact that the detenu's passport had been retained by the Sponsoring Authority.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the failure to provide translated copies of the order of detention and grounds of detention violated the detenu's right to make an effective representation, and the detention order was not sustainable as it violated the mandate of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.
Issues: The issues included the failure to provide translated versions of the order of detention and grounds of detention in a language known to the detenu, and the non-consideration of the fact that the detenu's passport had been retained by the Sponsoring Authority.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the failure to provide translated copies of the order of detention and grounds of detention violated the detenu's right to make an effective representation, rendering the detention impermissible.
Final Decision: The court quashed and set aside the detention order and directed that the detenu be set at liberty.
1. This writ petition arises out of the detention order dated 30th September, 2014, by which one Ms. Salma Karolia of Surat was detained in exercise of the powers conferred by section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (“COFEPOSA”) read with Government Order of Home Department dated 18th December, 2014. The said detenu is detained at Nashik Road Central Prison, Nashik. The petitioner is the nephew of the detenu and has filed the present petition for the life, welfare and personal liberty of the detenu.
2. On or about 30.9.2014, the Respondent No.2 Detaining Authority issued a communication containing the grounds of detention of the detenu. The facts set out in the said communication are as follows :
On 20.12.2013 at about 8.30 am Emirates Flight EK 504 from Bahrain landed in Mumbai. The Customs Officers were keeping vigil on incoming passengers and in the course of surveillance officers of Air Intelligence Unit (“AIU”) found the detenu moving about in a suspicious manner near Conveyor belt No.5, looking very nervous. She was talking to two other male passengers, whose movements also appeared suspicious. AIU therefore kept a watch.
3. After the detenu collected her baggage, she walked towards the baggage screening machine and opted for the green channel. After her luggage was screened, the AIU intercepted her and verified her passport and found that the passenger had arrived in India on numerous occasions and had short stays on each visit. Her name was shown as Salma Karolia. On being questioned, she stated that she was in business of purchasing burkhas from India and selling them in her country. On being asked whether she was carrying any gold or contraband, she replied in negative but her replies and general demeanor were unsatisfactory and she was extremely nervous. AIU then examined her baggage and noticed that on the rear side of her baggage trolley there were two metal boxes hooked onto the grill of the compartment. This alerted the AIU.
4. On interrogation she confessed that the boxes contained gold. She was intermittently looking towards her two male co-passengers, who had by then collected their baggage and were found waiting near the baggage claim area. On inspection of their trolleys it was noticed that they also had similar aluminium cases hooked on the rear part of the baggage trolleys. They were also intercepted. One of them was Sedu Arif Mohammad Yusuf and the another was Saleh Abubaker Ahmad Said. On inspection of all the six aluminium cases they were found to contain two gold bars of 1 kg each.
5. Thus in all 12 gold bars of one kg each collectively weighing 12 kgs. were recovered from the six aluminium cases. The value of the aforesaid bars of 12 kilos was Rs.3,00,41,040/-. These gold bars were seized under the provisions of the Customs Act. The statement of Saleh Abubakar Ahmad Said was recorded in which he stated that he purchases rice and spices from Dubai and India and exports it to South Africa. He provided his addresses and contact numbers in Dubai and South Africa. He admitted to carrying gold bars and stated that the six aluminium rectangular cases concealing 12 bars of gold were handed over to him by one Mr.Shaukat of South Africa at Dubai Airport. Thereafter, he was to handover two aluminium rectangular cases to the detenu Ms.Karolia and two aluminium cases to the other co-passenger Mr.Sedu Arif Mohd. Yusuf.
6. The statement of the detenu was also recorded on 20.12.2013 under section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. The detenu stated that she was 44 years old, had studied upto 9th standard in Gujarati medium from Gujrathi Prathamik Shala (Government School) Guna Kosamba Taluka Mangoran, Surat, Gujarat. She further stated that she can read, write and understand Gujarati. The detenu was accused of offences punishable under sections 135 (1)(a) and 135(1) (b) read with 135 (1)(d)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 for his invo
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.