SUJANA PARVEN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE wife of the detenu is the petitioner in the above Habeas Corpus Petition. THE detenu has been detained by the first respondent by the detention order issued in G.O. No. SR.I/161-5/2010 Public (S.C.) Department dated 25.5.2010 by exercising the power conferred with the first respondent under Section 3(1) (i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter called as, COFEPOSA Act). THE detention is being challenged in the above, Habeas Corpus Petition.

(2.) ON 23.1.2010, the intelligence officer attached to the Air Cargo Intelligence Unit, Air Cargo Complex, Chennai - 27 summoned two independent mahazar witnesses to be present at Esquire Common User Terminal, Old Airport, Meenambakkam, Chennai to witness the opening and examination of two numbers of brown colour carton box covered under AWB No. ER 341521199SG and ER341521171SG booked through the registered courier XPS Courier, Chennai booked by Thiru. A. Rajasekar, BL/C 327, 07 No. 17/7, Yishnris Road, Singapore consigned to Thiru. K. Giritharan, New No. 9, Viswanathan Street, Rathanagar, Chrompet, Chennai, arrived by Flight No. 9W 015 dated 19.12.2009 covered under Courier Bill of Entry No. 5347 dated 21.1.2010. Accordingly, two mahazar witnesses were present. The mahazar witnesses were informed that the goods were declared as books and milk and that on scanning, it was found to have contained images looking like watches and at the image of the goods of the said courier parcels did not tally with the description of the goods mentioned as books and milk in the courier bill of entry, the packager were detained by the officer attached to the Courier Cell and the carton boxes were handed over to the custodian of the Esquire Express Courier Terminal duly sealed with Customs Seal No. 200 for further investigation. In the presence of witnesses, the carton boxes were examined and it was found that the same had been booked in the name of one Thiru. Giritharan. Thiru. Giritharan was questioned in the presence of independent witnesses about the contents of packages and whether the said parcels belong to him. Thereafter, he admitted that his real name was Thiru. S Mohammed Rja Ali and he purposely booked the consignments in the name of Thiru. Giritharan and also had signed the authorisation in the name of Thiru. Giritharan and also produced a fabricated xerox copy of the driving licence bearing No. E/TN/01/000316/2000 dated 29.2.2000 having the address as No. 4-A, Viswanathan Street, Chennai - 44. Then, the package was opened in the presence of witnesses and on examination, it was found to contain 293 Nos. of assorted Titan wrist watches in Box No. I and 345 Nos. of assorted Titan Wrist watches in Box No. II. As the description of the goods imported was grossly mis-declared and also there was no valid documents for these imports, 638 Nos. of watches were seized under the mahazar for action under the Customs Act, 1962. The consignor was informed about the detaining of the parcel. ON 21.1.2009, the detenu came with the authorisation letter and identity proof for clearance. Thereafter, an enquiry was conducted and as the custom officials believed that the detenu had committed offence punishable under Sections 132 and 135 Sections 132 and 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, he was, arrested on 24.1.2010 and produced before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate E.O.II, Egmore, Chennai on 24.1.2010 and he was remanded to judicial custody till 5.2.2010. The remand was further extended upto 19.2.2010. Subsequently, on 18.2.2010, the detenu was enlarged on bail by the Principal Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai and his bail conditions also came to be relaxed on 19.3.2010. Thereafter, steps were taken to initiate adjudication and prosecution proceedings against the detenu. But in the meantime, as the State Government was satisfied that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it was necessary to detain the detenu under the provisions of the COFEPOSA Act with a view to prevent him from indulging in smuggling of goods in future, the detention order was passed by the first respondent, invoking the power under Section 3(1) (i) of COFEPOSA Act. The said detention order is being challenged in the above Habeas Corpus Petition.

(3.) ON the aforesaid submission, Mr. A.N. Thambidurai, learned Additional Public Prosecutor was heard, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that immediately after passing the order of detention, the same was handed over to the concerned Inspector of Police for executing the same and as the Inspector of Police was not aware of the appearance of the detenu before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Alandur, he was not able to execute the order. Mr. P. Mahadevan, learned counsel appearing for this second respondent adopted the arguments of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.