LAKSHMIBAI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Lakshmi Bai, the petitioner herein, the mother of the detenu S.Jagannath, challenging the order of detention directing the detenu to be detained under Section 31(1)(i) of the COFEPOSA Act, 1974, with a view to prevent him from smuggling goods in future, passed by the Secretary to the Government, Public Department, State of Tamil Nadu, the first respondent herein in G.O.S.R.1/1222-7/91 Public (SC) Department dated 22-9-1999, has filed this Habeas Corpus Petition before this Court invoking the Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to quash the same and to set the detenu at liberty.

(2.) The factual matrix leading to the passing of the order of detention, to some extent is essential in order to understand the controversy which is to be dealt with in this case:- "(a) S. Jagannath, the detenu on 4-8-1999, the holder of Indian Passport came from Singapore to Chennai. After completion of his immigration formalities, he collected his two registered baggages and one polythene hand bag from conveyor belt and proceeded to Table No. 14. There he declared to the Table Superintendent that he had goods valued at Rs.1,20,000/-. At that stage, the Directorate, Revenue Intelligence Officers collected two more registered baggages booked in his name available near the conveyor belt. On suspicion that he left the registered baggages near conveyor belt in order to evade customs duty, the D.R.I. Officer took him to the A.I.U. room along with the other baggages which were in his possession for examination. When he was questioned, he stated that he was not in possession of any contraband including electronic goods, (b) Thereafter, the Officer opened and examined four registered baggages and one hand baggage. These four registered baggages on being opened, found to contain several Panasonic Portable V.C.D. Player with accessories, Samsung Cellular phones, Panasonic Carm Corder, Panasonic Cordless Phone, Pioneer Car Stereo worth about Rs. 5,58,100/- (CIF) and Rs. 8.37,150/- (market value). On further interrogation, he gave a voluntary statement that he went to Singapore and booked four baggages in his name containing electronic goods and declared the goods to the Superintendent of Customs contained only in two baggages by giving the value of Rs. 1,20,000 and the D.R.I. Officials round two other baggages booked in his name and when questioned him, he admitted the ownership of those baggages also which were found to contain electronic goods and that he knew that it is an offence to smuggle these baggages with electronic goods without declaring to customs. (c) On 5-8-1999 he gave further statement that he had earlier been arrested by the customs and detained under COFEPOSA Act in 1995 for attempting to smuggle electronic goods. The authorities found that he committed the offences punishable under Sections 112,132 and 135 of the Customs Act and the goods which were attempted to be imported to India were liable for confiscation under Section 111(d), (1) & (m) of the Customs Act, 1962. (d) The said Jagannath was arrested and the goods were seized. He was produced before the Additional Chief metropolitan Magistrate, E.O.-I, Chennai and he was remanded to judicial custody. On his behalf, a bail petition was filed on 6-8-1999 stating that he was innocent and that he did not give any vountary statement to the officials. The Customs Department, filed a counter denying the assertion made by the detenu in the bail petition. Ultimately, the said bail petition was dismissed on 17-8-1999, as the same was with drawn by the Counsel for the detenu. (e) Thereafter, on his behalf, representation was sent to the Commissioner of Customs that no contraband was seized from him under voluntary confession and the Customs Department did not fix the correct value as he brought the goods worth about Rs. 4,00,000/- only and requesting to furnish the statement of the Customs Officers and to fix the correct value. The Customs Department sent a reply refuting those allegations and rejecting the request. (f) Thereafter, the detaining authority, the State Government on the basis of the materials placed by the sponsoring authority formed the subjective satisfaction to detain him under custody under the COFEPOSA Act in order to prevent him from indulging in such smuggling activities in the future by the order dated 22-9-1999. This order is the subject matter of the challenge before this Court in this Habeas Corpus Petition filed by the mother of the detenu seeking for the intervention of this Court.

(3.) On behalf of the detenu though in the affidavit filed by the petitioner, several grounds were raised assailing the impugned order of detention. In view of the counter filed by the respondent giving the factual details. Mr. B.Kumar, the learned senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would confine himself to three contentions.