RAJESWARI Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P1 order of detention issued under Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'COFEPOSA Act' for short).

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that, on 28/10/11, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence received intelligence report about the attempt to smuggle out a consignment of red sanders, an item prohibited for export under the Export-Import Policy framed under the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992, and also a notified item under the Convention of International Trade Endangered Species of Flora and Fauna, through ICTT, Vallarpadam. It is stated that thereupon the officers of the DRI, Cochin conducted surveillance at the gates of ICTT which ultimately led to interception of lorry bearing Regn.No.KL-11 U 3069, carrying a container which arrived at the ICTT. The container was stacked with red sanders logs weighing 13.69 metric tons. The goods along with the container and the lorry were seized under mahazar and summons was issued to Sri.K.P.Sibu and Sri.V.S.Unnikrishnan. Their statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 were recorded. In these statements, it was revealed that attempt to smuggle out red sanders was at the instance of Sri.P.AnilKumar (hereinafter referred to as the detenu). Accordingly Sri.Anilkumar was arrayed as accused No.1 in the case registered and was arrested on 31/10/11. He was released on bail pursuant to Ext.P4 order dated 4/11/11. Subsequently, Ext.P1 order of detention under the provisions of the COFEPOSA Act was issued on 13/2/12 and Sri.Anilkumar was arrested on 9/12/12. He continues in detention and in the meanwhile, his mother has filed this writ petition challenging the detention.

(3.) When the case was taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner raised three contentions. The first contention raised was that, since the date of occurrence was on 28/10/11, Ext.P1 order of detention passed on 13/2/12 is a delayed one and therefore is an illegal order. The second contention raised was that though Ext.P1 order of detention was passed on 13/2/12, the detenu was arrested only on 9/12/12. Hence, according to the counsel, there was inordinate and unexplained delay in the execution of the order vitiating the detention of the detenu.