KAISER OTMAR Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BALASUBRAHMANYAN, J. This is a petition for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus. The petitioner is an Austrian national aged about 51 years. He arrived at Madras by Air from Singapore on the 13th January, of this year. On 15th and 16th January, a number of smuggled foreign wrist watches and metal watch straps were recovered from unaccompanied baggage belonging to the petitioner in the Air Cargo Complex of the Meenambakkam Airport. On the 17th January, even the personal baggage of the petitioner which had been earlier cleared by the Customs disclosed on further search a few more contraband watches as well as a duplicate passport. The Preventive Officers of the Customs Department had taken signed statements from the petitioner on the 16th and 17th January, about the circumstances which the baggages containing the smuggled watches and watch straps were dispatched from Singapore to India by Air. On the 18th January, at the instance of a Preventive Officer of the Customs, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate reminded the petitioner to judicial custody in the Central Prison, Madras. On the 31st January while the petitioner was still under remand in the Central Prison, the State Government ordered his preventive detention under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to by its popular name as the COFEPOSA Act). The petitioner made representations against the order of detention to the Advisory Board but without success. He has new filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for a writ of habeas corpus against the State Government, which is the detaining authority, the Collector of Customs, whose Department was instrumental in placing the materials before the State Government leading to his preventive detention and also the Superintendent of Central Jail, Madras, which is presently executing the detention order. The petitioner-s contention is that the detention by the State Government is illegal and he must be set at liberty.

(2.) THE order of detention was passed under section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act. THE Order states that the petitioner was being detained, because the State Government was satisfied that it was necessary to detain him with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods and from engaging himself in keeping or concealing smuggled goods.

(3.) MR. Rangavajjula, learned Counsel for the petitioner, addressed his submissions before this Court only from the above premises. He said that he was not canvassing the correctness or advisability of the decision of the State Government. Nor did he urge us to apply our independent minds to the materials in the ease to test the correctness or validity of the State Government-s satisfaction as to the necessity for the detention of the petitioner. All that he urged was that this Court should examine the grounds disclosed by the State Government to the petitioner with a view to finding out whether all the facts which had a vital bearing on the question as to whether the petitioner is to be detained or not were in fact made available or were adverted to by State Government before it passed its order of detention.