CHARANJEET SINGH Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DETENU himself is the Petitioner, he has prayed for issue of a habeas for his production before this Court for being set at liberty, after quashing the impugned order of detention dt.27.11.1992 passed by the first Respondent in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3(1)(i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 as amended, with a view to preventing the Petitioner from smuggling goods.

(2.) BRIEF facts which led to the passing of the impugned order of detention will have to be stated. Detenu holding a Singapore Pass - Port, arrived at Madras International Airport on 16.11.1992 by Singapore Airlines Flight No. So.410. After completion of immigration formalities, he opted for the Customs green channel where he proceeded along with his baggage consisting of a black colour handbag marked "SIA group Sports Club". He declared to the Superintendent of Customs that he had nothing to declare. Soon thereafter, Petitioner was intercepted by customs officers on reasonable suspicion that he might have concealed gold either on his person or in his baggage. Personal search of the detenu revealed that he had concealed in his shoes, right and left, gold bars -in all 20 gold bars weighing 2332 grams were recovered. The search of the hand bag fed to recovery of some incriminating documents namely, key card of Chola Sheraton, a computer printout regarding the travel and three Singapore Airlines tickets bearing certain numbers. Since the Petitioner did not have a permit or licence for import of gold, the Petitioner was questioned, His voluntary statement was recorded soon thereafter. The Petitioner was arrested, produced before the concerned court and bail application before the Magistrate was dismissed, while a similar bail application was pending before the court of sessions. After follow up action, the impugned order of detention was passed on 27.11.1992.

(3.) MR . I. Subramaniam, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, while countering the arguments of Mr. Habibullah Basha, submitted that copies of key card and three Singapore Airline tickets have been furnished to the Petitioner though the computer printout, had not been so furnished. However, he submitted that computer printout was totally an innocuous document and the detaining authority had erroneously stated that the said document was incriminating and that this Court can satisfy itself that the computer printout cannot be treated as an incriminating document. He produced before us the computer printout.