R ANURADHA Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE issues raised in all H.C.Ps. are identical and common arguments were advanced by both the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the respondents. Hence, all the H.C.Ps. are taken up for disposal by this common order.

(2.) THE petitioners are the wives of the detenus. THE detenus have been clamped with individual order of detention made by the first respondent dated 10.9.2001 under Sec. 3(1)(i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (Central Act 52 of 1974). THE grounds of detention suggest that on 10.7.2001, Intelligence Officers of Customs, Chennai detained 12 white coloured diplomatic mail bags bearing tags serially numbered from AF-122 to AF-133 addressed to the British Deputy High Commission, Chennai, which were arrived from Singapore by flight SQ 410/ 10.7.2001 in the presence of witnesses on a reasonable belief that the said bags might contain contraband. On examination of the said 12 bags on 11.7.2001 by the officers of the Customs Department in the presence of independent witnesses, 935 numbers of gold bars weighing 109.021 Kgs., gold jewellery weighing 10.111 Kgs., Panasonic GD 90 Cell-phones with accessories 150 Nos. and RAM cards 1100 numbers were found concealed. As there is no licence or valid document to show the validity of the import of the said contraband, and there was attempt of smuggling the same by way of passing as "Diplomatic Cargo", the contrabands were seized along with the materials used for packing the bags and covering the goods for further action under the Customs Act, 1962 read with Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. It is also suggested in the grounds of detention that on further enquiry, it came to light that those bags were to be cleared by the detenus as "Diplomatic Cargo" and in the past also, the detenus cleared similar eight consignments since May, 2001 as "Diplomatic Cargo" and transported them by using the British High Commission's vehicle and handed over to one Thiru Sali and Thiru Kadhar and for such clearance, the detenus received a sizeable income, which was shared by them. On further investigation, it came to light that there were number of similar activities on the part of the detenus in clearing the parcels under the guise of "Diplomatic Cargo" and were handed over to the said M/s.Sali and Kadhar. Considering the chain of activities, the Detaining Authority was satisfied that it was necessary to detain the detenus under the provisions of COFEPOSA with a view to prevent the detenus in indulging similar acts in future.

(3.) THE first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the documents dated 8.10.2001 though furnished to the detenus, the detenus were not informed the purpose for which those documents were furnished and those documents were also forwarded without there being either covering letters or additional affidavits of the sponsoring authority. THE documents at page Nos.49 and 50 of the Booklet are the affidavits of the Superintendent of Customs, Air Intelligence Unit, Air Commissionerate, Custom House,Chennai-1 and the petitions were filed under Sec. 110(1B) of Customs Act, 1962, seeking for a direction from the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, E.O.II, Egmore, Chennai to allow the petitioner to draw representative samples of the Gold Biscuits, Gold Jewellery and RAM cards seized in the case and documents at pages 51 and 52 are the Tamil version of the said documents. Those two documents dated 8.10.2001 came into existence subsequent to the orders of detention dated 10.9.2001 and were served on the detenus on 18.10.2001. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor is not in a position to dispute the fact that though those two documents were served on the detenus, they were neither accompanied by covering letters or additional affidavits of the sponsoring authority. It is also not stated as to for what purpose those documents were served on the detenus. It is the submission of both the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel that those documents were furnished to the detenus only as additional information. Hence, those documents should be considered as materials that were furnished to the detenus as additional materials in support of the orders of detention.