M. ABDUL HAKIM Vs. STATE BY GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU, REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY, FORT ST. GEORGE AND GOVT. OF INDIA, REP. BY ADDL. SECRETARY, TO GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by one Abdul Hakim for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus against an order of detention passed against his cousin Mohammed Ali on 22 -5 -1989 under the provisions of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (Central Act 52 of 1974), hereinafter referred to as the COFEPOSA Act, with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods.

(2.) AS per the grounds of detention the detenu when on 6 -3 -1989 he arrived at Madras International Airport as a passenger from Singapore, on search of his bags by the Customs Intelligence Officers, was found to have concealed 11 gold bars weighing 50 grams each with foreign markings for which he had no valid permit and therefore he attempted to smuggle gold into India. Then he gave a confession statement. Considering the relevant materials the first Respondent -Government of Tamil Nadu was satisfied that he had indulged in smuggling goods and they were also satisfied that if he were let to remain at large he would indulge in such activities and recourse to normal criminal law would not have the desired effect of effectively preventing him from indulging in such activities, and therefore it was necessary that he must be detained in pursuance of an order of detention passed under Section 3(1)(i) of the COFEPOSA Act. Accordingly an order was passed. The second Respondent then passed an order under Section 9 of the Act on 18 -8 -1989.

(3.) IT is next contended that there is inordinate delay in implementing the detention order and this is indicative that the order of detention is not genuine. It is submitted that while the date of order is 22 -5 -1989 the detenu was arrested after a delay of 72 days i.e. on 2 -8 -1989. This contention is repudiated by the first Respondent stating that the detention order was sent to the Deputy Inspector General of Police for execution on the very date of the order i.e., on 22 -5 -1989, the detenu was absconding and evading arrest, the Deputy Inspector General of Police was reminded on 25 -7 -1989, and that there was no delay on the part of the first Respondent in implementing the order. The two facts viz., that the order for execution was sent on the date of order itself, i.e., on 22 -5 -1989 and that the Deputy Inspector General of Police was reminded of the matter on 25 -7 -1989 render it difficult to believe that there was inaction of the first Respondent in implementing the order.