Page 1

JUDGMENT

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO._872 OF 2014

(@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) No.988 of 2014)

LICIL ANTONY

..... APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF KERALA & ANR.

.... RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

Chandramauli Kr. Prasad

Petitioner Licil Antony happens to be the

wife of detenu Antony Morris and aggrieved by

the order dated 6^th of November, 2013 passed by

a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in

Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 412 of 2013

declining to quash the order of detention

passed under Conservation of Foreign Exchange

and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act,

Page 2

JUDGMENT

1974, hereinafter referred to as “COFEPOSA”,

has preferred this special leave petition.

Leave granted.

Shorn of unnecessary details, facts

giving rise to the present appeal are that on

the allegation that the appellant’s husband

Antony Morris, hereinafter referred to as the

detenu, intended to export red sanders through

International

Container

Trans-shipment

Terminal, was arrested on 17^th of November,

2012 by the Directorate of Revenue

Intelligence and a case was registered against

him.

He was released on bail by the

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic

Offences), Ernakulam. The Directorate of

Revenue Intelligence, hereinafter referred to

as ‘DRI’, by its letter dated 17^th of December,

2012 made recommendation for the detenu’s

detention besides two others under Section 3

of the COFEPOSA alleging that they are part of

2

Page 3

JUDGMENT

a well-organised gang operating in smuggling

of red sanders in India and abroad. The

proposals of the DRI, hereinafter referred to

as the sponsoring authority, were received in

the office of the detaining authority on 21^st

of December, 2012. The detaining authority

after scrutiny and evaluation of the proposals

and the documents, decided on 25^th of January,

2013 to place the proposals before the

screening committee and forwarded the same to

it on 1^st of February, 2013. The proposals of

the detenu’s detention along with two others

were considered by the screening committee

which concurred with the recommendation of the

sponsoring authority. The detaining authority

considered the facts and circumstances of the

case as also the reports of the sponsoring

authority and the screening committee and

other materials running over 1000 pages and

took decision on 15^th of April, 2013 to detain

the detenu and two others. Draft grounds for

detention in English were approved on 19^th of

3

Page 4

JUDGMENT

April, 2013 and as one of the detenue was a

Tamilian, time till 3^rd of May, 2013 was taken

for translation of the documents relied on in

Malyalam and Tamil and for preparation of

sufficient number of copies. Ultimately, with

a view to prevent the detenu from engaging in

the smuggling of goods, the detaining

authority passed order of detention dated 6^th

of May, 2013. It was served on the detenu on

11^th of June, 2013. The grounds of detention

dated 8^th of May, 2013 were made available to

the detenu on 13^th of June, 2013. The detenu

was produced before the Advisory Board, which

found sufficient grounds for his continued

detention and, accordingly, the detaining

authority issued order dated 24^th of August,

2013, and confirmed the order of detention for

a period of one year with effect from 11^th of

June, 2013, the date of detention.

It is relevant here to state that detenu

was earlier arrested in connection with Kallur

4

Page 5

JUDGMENT

Police Station FIR No.57 of 2012 under Section

29 and 32 of A.P. Forest Act, 1937; Section 29

of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972; Section

55(2) of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002;

Rule 3 of the A.P. Sandalwood and Red Sanders

Wood Transit Rules, 1969 and Section 379 of

the Indian Penal C