NITHYAKALYANI Vs. MAHENDRA PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is by the wife of the detenu Radhakrishnan detained under the provisions of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act. The detention order was passed u/S. 3(1) of the said Act with a view to preventing the detenu from dealing in smuggled goods otherwise than by engaging in transporting or concealing or keeping smuggled goods.

(2.) The grounds of detention gives the following facts : - Acting on intelligence, on 15-10-1989, the Officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Madras and Trichy visited the premises situate at 37-A, Laxminarayanapuram Agraharam, Simmakkal, Madurai-1 and the detenu was found there in possession of 70 gold bars with foreign markings. The detenu did not produce any document to show that these gold bars were licit ones and therefore they were seized. The detenu gave a statement on the same say to the Officers that for the past three years he was doing business in brokerage in buying and selling gold and silver ornaments and in that connection he came in contact with one Subramaniam, and ten days ago the said Subramaniam approached the detenu and asked him to sell 12 foreign marked gold bars of 10 tolas each and the detenu sold the same in the bazaar to brokers and got a commission of Rs. 100/- per bar. On 15-10-1989 the said Subramaniam, as told by him to the detenu earlier came to the house of the brother-in-law of the detenu Selvarangam and met him there and he gave the detenu 70 gold bars and he told him to give him the proceeds of the gold bars in four days' time and thereupon Subramaniam left and when he (detenu) was about to take away the said gold bars the Officers came to that house and seized the gold bars. Being satisfied on the materials placed before him the detaining authority Joint Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Finance that it is necessary to detain the detenu under the Act, he passed the detention order under S. 3(1) of the Act.

(3.) Mr. B. Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner attacking the order of detention raised three points viz.,