ANEESUR RAHMAN Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the challenge is to the order passed by the Government dated 20th September, 2002 under the provisions of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (in short COFEPOSA ), ordering the detention of one Thiru A. Aneesur Rahman, son of late Anwar Basha. The said Aneesur Rahman was apprehended in Chennai International Airport while he was on his way to Dubai by a flight of Oman Airlines. He was found to be carrying a baggage of two zipper suitcases, one stroller bag and one zipper handbag. When he was stopped by the authorities and asked as to the contents of the bags, he said that the bags contained sweet-boxes and personal things. One bag was opened and it was found that there were two hard-boxes and those hard-boxes were fixed with false bottom and contained Rs.21,60,000/- in one bag and Rs.20,00,000/- in another bag. By the same flight one Kiran Kumar and his wife Mrs. Hema Kiran Kumar were also travelling. He claimed to be the Manager of the said Kiran Kumar and on his statement even Kiran Kumar and Hema Kiran Kumar were also stopped and the statements were recorded. In his statement he tried to claim that these bags were being carried at the instance of Kiran Kumar, whose employee he was, whereas, Kiran Kumar denied all that. Ultimately, the said detenu was arrested and so also Kiran Kumar and his wife. Eventually, all these persons came to be bailed out by the courts of law, including this Court. Ultimately, an order came to be passed on 20th September, 2002 by the Secretary to the Government on behalf of the Government, ordering the preventive detention of the detenu under the COFEPOSA.

(2.) We need not go into the details of what all happened before the order was inflicted upon as also the other facts in view of the submissions made by Shri Habibulla Basha, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

(3.) Mr. Basha, amongst other contentions, pointed out that there were serious errors committed by the detaining authorities inasmuch as firstly the relied upon documents were not supplied to the petitioner within time as contemplated by Sec.3(3) of the COFEPOSA. Learned counsel points out that some documents came to be supplied to the petitioner by a letter dated 8-10-2002. Learned counsel heavily relied on this letter and for the sake of convenience we would choose to quote the letter: