H RAHEENANNISA Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BELLIE, J W. P. No. 15495 of 1989 is by the wife of One Syed Hussain, w. P. No. l5496 of 1989 is by the mother of one Syed Zakir, W. P. No. 15731 of 1989 is by the wife of one Syed Basheer and W. P. No. 15803 of 1989 is by Mohamed habib, all detained under the provisions of the Conservation of Foreign exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, hereinafter referred to as cofeposa Act. The detenus have been detained under Secs. 3 (1) (i) and 3 (1) (ii) of the COFEPOSA Act with a view to preventing them from smuggling goods and abetting the smuggling of goods.

(2.) THE detenu Syed Hussain is said to have engaged Syed zakir, Syed Basheer, Mohamed Habib, one Rafi and one Kaleel Ahamed from India at the instance of one Arumugam at Singapore to smuggle gold from Singapore to India. On 28. 2. 1989 the detenues arrived at Madras Airport as passengers from Singapore by Singapore Airlines Flight SQ 042 with forged passports. On persistent questioning then admitted that they havebrought gold bars concealed in their chappals and wrist watches worn by them. Four gold bars weighing 10 tolas each were seized from Syed Hussain embedded and concealed in his chappals, two gold bars weighing 10 tolas each were seized from Syed Zakir which were also embedded in his chappals, two gold bars weighing 10 tolas each embedded and concealed in the chappals and also a gold piece of 25 grams concealed in the wrist watch were recovered from Syed Basheer, and two gold bars weighing 10 tolas each which had been concealed in the chappals and a gold piece of 27 grams concealed in the wrist watch were recovered from Mohamed Habib. Besides these detenus some gold bars were seized from one and Rafi Kaleel ahamed who also had come with them in the same flight. Each of the detenu has given a confession statement to the customs officers to the effect that they had smuggled gold from Singapore and that Syed Hussain abetted the other detenus to smuggle gold bars. On the facts placed before the detaining authority viz. , the State Government it was satisfied that it is necessary to detain the detenues under the COFEPOSA Act for preventing them from further smuggling and abetting smuggled foreign goods. Hence accordingly the orders of detention had been passed.

(3.) IN the present case, on one incident, there are as many as six persons involved and from all of them contrabands were recovered and while others smuggled the contrabsnds one of them apart from himself smuggling goods abetted smuggling of goods, and the entire operation was done at the instance of one Arumugam who is a resident of Singapore. Even' from the copies of the documents supplied to the detenus which are more than 150 the enormity of the matter can be understood. Certainly it cannot at all be said that there was no nexus between the incident and the detention order. Hence we hold that there was no inordinate delay on account of which the detention order is vitiated as submitted.