IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
K.T. SANKARAN & K.P. JYOTHINDRANATH, JJ.
EDWIN ANDREW MINIHAN - PETITIONER
Vs.
THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS. - RESPONDENTS
W.P.(C) No.37159 of 2015
Decided On : 17-03-2016
Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act 1974 - S. 3 - Evidence Act, 1872 - S. 65B( 4) - Cases in which secondary evidence relating to documents may be given - Relevancy - Whether proceedings under the COFEPOSA Act are proceedings before a court - Whether Indian Evidence Act would apply - Held, The profit sharing account was not certified as provided under Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act and therefore it should not have been relied on by the detaining authority - Section 1 of the Evidence Act, 1872 states that it extends to the whole of India (except the State of Jammu and Kashmir) and applies to all judicial proceedings in or before any Court, including Courts-martial and proceedings under the COFEPOSA Act are not proceedings before a court and therefore Section 65-B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act would not apply.
K.T. Sankaran, J.
Edwin Andrew Minihan, an Irish national who came to India on 13.7.2015 from Dubai, is undergoing preventive detention in execution of Ext.P2 order of detention dated 3.9.2015 issued under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the COFEPOSA Act'). Ext.P2 order of detention is under challenge in this Writ Petition.
2. The facts in a nutshell are the following: The petitioner arrived at Nedumbassery International Airport by Emirates Flight EK 534 from Dubai on 13.7.2015. The officers of the Commissionerate of Customs, Kochi had received information that frequent passengers arriving from sensitive destinations were involved in smuggling gold into India and, therefore, a vigil on such passengers arriving from Dubai was made. The petitioner stated when asked that he was not carrying any dutiable/contraband goods. On a search of the body of the petitioner, ten gold bars totally weighing 10 kilograms were found in his waist coat, overcoat and pockets. A statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act was recorded from the petitioner on 13.7.2015 and on 14.7.2015. The petitioner was arrested on 14.7.2015. The petitioner revealed in his statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act that the gold was provided to him at Dubai by Tharique Akbar Mohamed. The petitioner was expected to bring the gold to India and deliver the same to one Nibu Mathew Varghese, who was known to the petitioner earlier. In the statement, the petitioner stated that he had came to India on several occasions earlier carrying gold, that he was staying at various hotels on those occasions and that the gold was being collected from him by Nibu Mathew Varghese, who was engaged by Tharique Akbar Mohamed. It was revealed that the CCTV footages at various hotels would disclose the identity of Nibu Mathew Varghese. The grounds of detention states as follows:
"16. An examination of the CCTV footages pertaining to the days of stay of Shri Edwin Andrew Minihan and Alina Hrisca Carmen in Cochin, received from the hotels M/s.Quality Airport Hotels and M/s.Courtyard Marriott vide letters dated 17.07.2015 and 21.07.2015 respectively and further investigation conducted in this regard revealed that the person to whom you handed over the gold was one Shri Nibu Mathew Varghese who owns a black colour Logan car bearing Reg. No.KL-07-BJ-5455; that Shri Nibu Mathew Varghese had often come in this car to the hotels to visit you; that the mobile number of Shri Nibu Mathew Varghese is 9846899666. It was also learnt that you had also travelled in a black colour BMW car owned by Shri Akbar, father of Tharique Akbar Mohamed with smuggled gold and that this vehicle has been parked at Flora Airport Hotel, Nedumbassery, Cochin. ..."
3. It was alleged that the petitioner identified the photographs of Tharique Akbar Mohamed and Nibu Mathew Varghese. On an examination of the laptop belonging to the petitioner, various statements indicating the profit sharing out of the smuggling of gold were taken. These profit sharing statements would indicate that the petitioner had brought to India a total quantity of 113.39 kg of gold. It is alleged that the petitioner visited India on 21 occasions during the period from 27.6.2014 to 13.7.2015 and those visits were for the purpose of smuggling of gold.
4. In execution of the order of detention dated 3.9.2015, the petitioner was arrested on 4.9.2015 and he was detained. The order of detention was confirmed on 23.11.2015.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner raised various points which will be discussed below. The learned counsel submitted that the CCTV footages were supplied to the detenu in the form of two compact discs on 4.9.2015, but the compact discs were played before the detenu only on 12.9.2015 and thereby, the valuable right of the detenu to make an effective representation at the earliest opportunity was lost. It was also alleged that there w
Radhakrishnan Prabhakaran Vs. State of T.N.
Kamla Kanhaiyalal Khushalani v. State of Maharashtra and another
Kamarunnissa v. Union of India and another
Icchu Devi Choraria v. Union of India
J. Abdul Hakeem v. State of T.N. and Others
Veera Ibrahim v. The State of Maharashtra
Ramesh Chandra Mehta v. State of West Bengal
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.