S P RAJAPANDIAN Vs. SENIOR INTELLIGENCE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two writ petitions are filed by the two petitioners challenging the orders, dated 06.08.2010 and 14.09.2010 passed by the respondent Senior Intelligence Officer, D.R.I., Chennai relating to arrest proceedings issued against the petitioners and seek to set aside the same and also for grant of compensation to the petitioners for the illegal incarceration pursuant to the arrest orders.

(2.) WHEN the matter came up on 24.11.2010, this Court had directed private notice to be served on the respondent. Accordingly, private notice was served. The respondent has filed counter affidavits, dated 14.12.2010 in both writ petitions.

(3.) THE order dated 6.8.2010 is the Arrest Memo issued against the first writ petitioner. The order had stated that on specific intelligence, in a mahazar proceedings, dated 05.08.2010 and 06.08.2010, the petitioner was intercepted by the Officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Chennai (DRI) at the Arrival Hall of the Chennai Airport on 05.08.2010. When the petitioner was arriving from Mumbai by Flight IC 173, he was in possession of lorry transport receipts, which according to him were for transporting Ketamine from Mumbai to Chennai and subsequently to smuggle it out of the Country. Based on the lorry receipts, 150 Kgs. of white colour powder suspected to be Ketamine were seized from the premises of the Transporters. The petitioner also made a voluntary statement, dated 06.08.2010 under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. He had admitted his conscious involvement with the seized contraband materials. Therefore, the respondent had stated that they had reason to believe that in view of the seized contraband, the petitioner had consciously concerned himself in the smuggling of the same, thereby rendering the goods liable for confiscation under Section 113 of the Customs Act, 1962. The materials used for concealment was also liable for confiscation under Section 119 of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner had committed offences punishable under Section 135(1)(b) and 135(1)(c) of the Customs Act, 1962. The respondent by the impugned order had directed the arrest of the petitioner on 06.08.2010.