LICIL ANTONY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P1, an order of detention issued under the COFEPOSA Act against husband of the petitioner Mr.Antony Morris (hereinafter referred to as the 'detenu' for short).

(2.) Briefly stated, facts of the case are that during November 2012, the Director of Revenue Intelligence (DRI for short), Regional Unit, Kochi gathered information that a consignment of Red sanders, an item prohibited for export under the EXIM POLICY, was being attempted to be smuggled to Dubai through the International Container Transshipment Terminal (ICTT), Vallarpadam, Cochin. Accordingly, two containers were detained by the DRI resulting in the recovery of a huge quantity of Red sanders. Statements of several persons were recorded by the DRI and from these statements, details of the active role played by the detenu in the smuggling of Red sanders through Cochin Port were disclosed. Accordingly, the detenu was summoned and his statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act was recorded. It is stated that in his statement, the detenu is alleged to have admitted his involvement in the smuggling of red sanders. Thereafter, proceedings under the COFEPOSA Act were initiated for the detention of three persons including the detenu and finally, by Ext.P1 order dated 6.5.2013, the detenu was ordered to be detained under Section 3(1)(ii) and 3(1)(iii) of the COFEPOSA Act. Pursuant to Ext.P1 order, he was detained on 11.6.2013 and he is undergoing detention. It is in this background, the detenu's wife has filed this writ petition seeking to set aside Ext.P1 order of detention and to set the detenu at liberty by the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.

(3.) We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. The first contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner was that the sponsoring authority suppressed vital documents from the detaining authority. He expatiated this contention by stating that in relation to another consignment, a criminal case was registered against the detenu in the State of Andra Pradesh and in that criminal case, he was enlarged on bail with conditions. Those conditions, according to the counsel, were sufficient to prevent the detenu from indulging in prejudicial activities and if those conditions were placed before him, the detaining authority would have been influenced by those materials.