M BHAVANA Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in HCP.No.1040 of 2009 Teoomal Mahesh has challenged the order of detention in G.O.No.SR.1/348-2/2009 Public (SC) Department, dated 22.6.2009, made by the first respondent detaining him under Section 3(1)(i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974.

(2.) The petitioner in HCP.No.1047 of 2009 Anandan Sivakumar has challenged the order of detention in G.O.No.SR.1/348-4/2009 Public (SC) Department, dated 22.6.2009, made by the first respondent detaining him under Section 3(1)(ii) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974.

(3.) Both the orders of detention were passed on the alleged incident when both the detenus arrived at Chennai International Airport on 27.5.2009 from Singapore. The detenu Teoomal Mahesh is stated to have declared Electronic Goods brought by him valued at Rs.1.5 lakhs and the detenu Anandan Sivakumar is stated to have declared the value of Electronic Goods brought by him as Rs. 2 lakhs. When the baggages of both the detenus were examined, they found to contain Cameras of brand Nikon, Sony and Canon and Philips HPI T 1000W Metal Halide lamps and the Officers assessed the value of the goods brought by the detenus at Rs.9,69,494/- and they were seized under mahazar. Voluntary statements from both the detenus were obtained on 28.5.2009 and they were arrested and remanded to judicial custody upto 11.6.2009. However, both the detenus were granted bail by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offences-II), Egmore by order dated 5.6.2009 with a direction to report before the Authorities and it was complied. Anandan Sivakumar gave a further statement on 15.6.2009 at Office of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. It is in the above background, the detention orders came to be clamped on the detenus on 22.6.2009 and they are challenged in both the Habeas Corpus Petitions.