S PREMNAZIR Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An order dated 12-3-2003, passed by the State Government (through its' Secretary, Public (SC) Department), directing the detention of one Thiru S.Premnazir, son of Thiru Sharif, under the provisions of Sec.3(1)(i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (in short 'COFEPOSA') and directing his detention with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods in future is in challenge in this writ petition.

(2.) From the grounds, it is revealed that on 12-12-2002, the said Premnazir, holder of an Indian passport, arrived from Singapore at Chennai by Singapore Airlines Flight SQ 410. He had two handbaggage when he was proceeding to Customs table for clearance. He was intercepted by the plain-clothed customs-officer and was questioned about the contents of his baggage. He replied that he had brought electronic goods worth Rs.40,000/-. However, on the further search of the baggage, which was ultimately undertaken, huge quantity of smuggled goods like Intel Pentium IV Processors-29 Nos.; Casio SF 3700 ER 64 KB Digital Diary - 70 Nos.; Citizen CT 500 calculators - 55 Nos.; Samsung R 220 Cellphones - 30 Nos.; Samsung N 620 Cellphones (without antenna) 10 Nos.; and Pioneer car stereos 15 Nos. were found. Not only this, but on opening the car stereo cabinets, it was found that therein also 128 MB and 256 MB RAMs (98 Nos. of 128 MB RAMs and 196 Nos. of 25 6 MB RAMs) were kept concealed.

(3.) Learned counsel, Shri Jabbar, appearing for the petitioner/ detenu, challenged this order firstly contending that this detention order, which was served on the detenu on 19-3-2003, came to be referred to the Advisory Board on 29-4-2003 and after the Advisory Board approved the detention, the further order under Sec.8(f) of COFEPOSA was passed on 2-6-2003, confirming detention. Learned counsel, however, points out that before the order under Sec.8(f) was passed, on 2-5-2003, a notice came to be served on the detenu under Sec.124 of the Customs Act for confiscation of the goods. He contends that a reply to the show-cause notice was given on 14-5-2003. He, however, points out that either this show-cause notice or the reply thereto were not placed before the Government before passing the order under Sec.8(f). He, therefore, contends that the order under Sec.8(f) was passed, without taking into consideration the show-cause notice or the reply thereto sent by the detenu in which he had clarified his position. Learned counsel says that the said show-cause notice as also the reply thereto was only in connection with the reasons for the detention and had a direct nexus with the detention order. According to the learned counsel, therefore, these two documents were bound to be considered and the non-consideration thereof has vitiated the order passed by the State Government on 2-6-2003 and thereby his detention is illegal.