PLARIDEL O DAYSOR Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only contention advanced is that the petitioners who have been placed under detention under Ss. (1 of S. 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling activities Act, 1974 governed by declaration under S. 9 should not be kept under detention but served with deportation order and deported inasmuch as they are foreign nationals. We are not in the least persuaded by the Submission. The Act has been enacted to effectively deal with smuggling activities and violations of Foreign exchange Regulations as they have an increasingly deleterious effect on the national economy and thereby adversely affecting in serious measure the security of the State. The Act does not prescribe different procedures of detention for nationals and foreign nationals. The grounds of detention clearly show that the detenus (Technical Engineer and the Second Officer) brought along with them on 23/06/1986, 750 gold bars weighing 87-5 kgs. They had gone to Taj Coromandel hotel (Room NO. 508 where Detenu Osman was staying who in turn handed over the gold bars to Detenu C. D. Chittaranjan staying at Room no. 10 in Woodlands Hotel. The entire gold was seized from Car no. TMZ 2857. In these circumstances there can be no doubt whatever that the petitioners were directly involved in smuggling of gold into the country contrary to the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitions are accordingly dismissed along with the applications for bail.

(2.) Our attention, however, is drawn to the order passed by this court in Writ Petition No. 8921 of 1986. In terms thereof we direct that if the challenge to the validity of S. 9 (1 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 is pending better a Constitution bench the petitioners may move the court for necessary directions. If and when the said matter is taken up for hearing the petitioners may apply to the court for intervention.