K RAMASAMY Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The detenu K. Ramaswami has filed this petition tinder Article 226of the Constitution of Indian to set aside the order of detention dated 31.8.1989 in G.O Ms. No. SR. 1/11/46-5/89, and set him at liberty.

(2.) The detenu is a native of Alathur village. He became a citizen of Singapore long ago. His wife and sons are living in Alathur. The detenu arrived at Madras Air Port by Air India flight oh 20th July, 1989. After immigration clearance, he was directed for customs clearance. He declared to the Superintendent of Customs in charge that he had no contraband except used clothes and one National Washing Machine. On suspicion, his baggages were searched. On close examination of the washing machine, the Customs Officials detected a packet which was kept concealed. On opening the packet, the officials recovered 10 gold bars each weighing 10 tolas. All the ten gold bars bore the foreign mark. After following the procedure, he was arrested on 20th July, 1989. He preferred a bail petition on 24.7.1989 before the Magistrate dealing with economic offences at Egmore. That bail petition was dismissed. Later on he moved another petition for bail before the Principal Sessions Judge, Madras, on 1.8.1989. That petition was also dismissed. He renewed by way of another petition on 22.8.1989 before the Principal Sessions Judge. That petition was also dismissed. Later on, he moved for bail on 24.8.1989 before this Court in Criminal M.P. No. 10429 of 1989 and this Court granted bail directing the detenu to report before the Assistant Collector of Customs daily at 10 a.m. He actually came out of bail on 29th August, 1989. On 30th August, 1989 there was "Bharath bandh". The detenu reported to the Assistant Collector, Customs, on 30.8.1989. When he went to the Assistant Collector of Customs, as usual, on 1.9.1989 for reporting he was served with the order of detention. According to the Department, the proposal for detention order has been initiated as early as 21st August, 1989.

(3.) The detenu questions the order of detention on various grounds. However, learned counsel for the petitioner confines his argument to the only ground, namely, that the detaining authority, while passing the order of detention, has not taken into consideration the order of bail granted by the High Court eight days earlier to the passing of the detention order.