Back
2006 Supreme(Mad) 971
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. SATHASIVAM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.A.K. SAMPATH KUMAR
M.Asial Beevi - Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by Secretary & Another - Respondents
Habeas Corpus Petition No.1174 of 2005
Decided On : 06 April 2006
The right of representation under Article 22(5) is a valuable Constitutional right and must be considered carefully for deciding the justification of detention.
Headnote:
HABEAS CORPUS - CONSERVATION OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE AND PREVENTION OF SMUGGLING ACTIVITIES ACT - 1974 - SUMMARY: The court considered the detention of Mohammed Arif under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. The petitioner challenged the detention order, citing telegrams sent by the detenu's mother and valuation of goods. The court analyzed the telegrams, principles of detention, and valuation of goods under the Customs Act. The court found that the telegrams did not constitute valid representation and upheld the detention order based on evidence of smuggling activities and proper valuation of goods.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the detention of Mohammed Arif under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, citing telegrams sent by the detenu's mother and valuation of goods.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the telegrams did not constitute valid representation and upheld the detention order based on evidence of smuggling activities and proper valuation of goods.
Issues: Validity of detention order based on telegrams and valuation of goods.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the telegrams did not constitute valid representation and upheld the detention order based on evidence of smuggling activities and proper valuation of goods.
Final Decision: The petition challenging the detention order was dismissed.
(Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of writ of habeas corpus, calling for the records of the first respondent made in G.O.No.SR1/666-6/2005 dated 20.07.200 5, quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body of the detenu Mohammed Arif, son of Mohammed Yakub, now detained in Central Prison, Chennai, under the provisions of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, before this Court and set him liberty.)
J.A.K. Sampath Kumar, J.
The petitioner, by name Asial Beevi, challenges the impugned order of detention dated 20.07.2005, detaining her son Mohammed Arif, who was detained and kept in custody in the Central Prison, Chennai, under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as “the Actâ€).
2. Heard both sides.
3. Heard Mr. B. Kumar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Abudukumar Rajarathinam, learned Government Advocate for the first respondent and Mr. P. Kumaresan, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel for the second respondent.
4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that when the detenu was a remand prisoner, his mother sent two telegrams on his behalf, one to the Government and the other to the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), New Delhi, which is the Head Office of DRI, complaining, that the goods brought by the detenu had been excessively valued, only to have a cause to detain the detenu under this Act and other vital materials and the same were not considered by the Government. Hence, the detention order is liable to be set aside.
5. Against this, the learned Government Advocate contended that no such telegrams were received by the Government at any point of time and even if they received, the same cannot be considered as representation in the light of the decision of the case District Magistrate and Another Vs R. Kumaravel reported in 1994 SCC (Cri) 229 and, as such, the contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner cannot sustain.
6. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner also relied on the following decisions;
(I) M/s. Sil Import, Usa Vs M/s. Exim Aides Silk Exporters, Bangalore (1999 Crl. L.J. 2276);
(Ii) Md. Shakeel Wahid Ahmed Vs State of Maharashtra (AIR 1983 Sc 541);
(Iii) Ayya Vs State of U.P. (1989 SCC (Cri) 153)
(Iv) Ahamed Nassar Vs State of Tamil Nadu and Others (1999 SCC (Cri) 1469; and
(V) P.M.S. Mohiadeen Sahib Vs State Of Tamil Nadu ((2006) 1 M.L.J. (Crl.) 131). in support of his contention.
7. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the relevant materials.
8. The senior counsel for the petitioner relied on two telegrams sent by the wife of the detenu in support of his contention. There is nothing on record to show that the said telegrams were really received by the persons mentioned in the telegrams. Learned counsel relied on the documents only with reference to the proof of sending those telegrams to the addressees. Those documents will not in any way consider as a proof of service on the persons mentioned in the said telegrams; whereas, against this, it is the categoric contention of the learned Government Advocate that no such telegrams were received by the persons concerned referred to in the telegrams and also filed counter, objecting to this contention.
9. In this context, it is relevant to mention the name of the addressees and the contents in the telegrams, for better appreciation of the facts of the case.
“(1) Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort Saint George,
Chennai-600 009.
My husband Mohammed Ariff arrested by Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Officers, T.Nagar, Chennai-17 by fixing high and inflated value for goods brought by him. Goods value very is very low. Release requested Aiysha Beevi.
(2) Director,
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence,
New Delhi.
My husband Mohammed Ariff arrested by your Officers at Chennai
