DAVID CHRISTOPHER Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the detenu. He challenges the order of detention passed by the first respondent, by an order dated 18.6.2003, and the grounds leading to his detention are as follows.

(2.) On 3.6.2003, the detenu, who is a holder of Srilankan passport, arrived at Anna International Airport, Chennai from Singapore. After completing the immigration formalities and carrying one Diplomat briefcase and two checked-in-bags, he proceeded out of the Customs arrival hall, where he produced the Customs declaration slip declaring that he had one AC Blower unit worth 240 Singapore dollars. He passed through the exit and when he was about to walk out, he was intercepted by Customs Intelligence Officers. They asked him about the contents of his baggage and the detenu told them that he is having only one AC indoor unit valued at 240 Singapore dollars. The Customs Officers were not satisfied with his reply. The detenu was, therefore, brought to the Air Intelligence Unit room for detailed examination and in the presence of witnesses, the detenu identified himself as well as the three pieces of baggage which he was having. The Intelligence Officers opened the baggage and found two nos. of Panasonic LCD Projector PTLC 55E. As the suitcase was found to be unusually heavy, it was subjected to thorough examination and was found to contain a bottom zip and on opening, they found 18 newspaper covered bundles. They were opened, which contained 30 nos. of Hynix 256 MB Rams each. Totally 540 numbers of Hynix 256 MB Rams were recovered from the suitcase. They also found one "O General" indoor model AOG12ASJW unit. When the black colour briefcase was opened, it contained his personal effects. Search of the detenu was also made and it resulted in the recovery of a Mustafas Foreign Exchange transaction voucher bearing number 00302870, one Nokia 6510 cellphone, one Motorola talkabout cellphone both with SIM cards and car keys. He also admitted that the car keys were for his Silver colour Hyundai Accent car bearing Registration No.TN-07-Q-6823 and identified the car which was in the parking area. His car was searched in the presence of witnesses, which led to the recovery of one Hynix Ram chip, one cheque book No.MSBL 253 413151 consisting unused cheque leaves from nos.413165 to 413175. As the contraband, found in possession of the detenu, was brought without any declaration or valid document with a view to evade duty, they were seized under a mahazar attested by witnesses. The total value of the seized contraband is Rs.11,38,500/-. He also gave a statement before the Customs Officer at Anna International Airport, Chennai giving all the details. The said statement was recorded. He was arrested on 4.6.2003 and produced before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, E.O.I, Chennai, who remanded him to judicial custody till 19.6.2 003. Later, his residential premises was also searched which resulted in the recovery of some documents, which are not relevant to the present detention. An intimation was sent to his mother about his arrest and remand on 5.6.2003. The Deputy High Commissioner of Srilanka was also informed about his arrest. Thereafter, he was served with the detention order on 18.6.2003, and the grounds of detention and documents were supplied to the detenu on 19.6.2003. The detenu sent representations to the State and Central Governments on 26.6.2003 and 2 7.6.2003 respectively. The Central Government rejected the representation of the detenu on 4.7.2003, while his representation was rejected by the State Government on 9.7.2003. After this, additional set of documents viz., search warrant and mahazar both dated 14.7.2003, were supplied to the detenu on 16.7.2003 along with a covering letter dated 15.7.2003, as could be seen from pages 21 to 28 of the booklet. On 18.7.2003, he was served with some more documents along with a covering letter dated 17.7.2003. On 30.7.2003, third set of documents viz., summons and statements of Sri.Karunanithi, Amaladass Nehru, Rajasekaran and others were supplied to the detenu with a covering letter dated 29.7.2003. On 7.8.2003, the detenu was supplied with summons and statement of Rajasekaran being the fourth set of additional documents along with a covering letter dated 6.8.2003. He was also informed that the Advisory Board is to meet on 7.8.2003 and he appeared before the Advisory Board on the said date and submitted his representation. The representation was forwarded to the State Government, which rejected it on 25.8.2003 and the confirmation order was also passed on 5.9.2003.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner assails the order of detention on the ground that when he was served with the additional sets of documents on four different dates with covering letters, he was not informed as, at whose instance they were served upon him, the purpose of their service and whether the said documents are going to be placed before the Advisory Board as well as before the confirming authority, and the detenu having been not furnished with such details, he was prevented from making an effective representation and it has caused confusion in his mind, which vitiates the order of detention. In support of his plea, he relies upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in "STATE OF BOMBAY v. ATMA RAM SHRIDHAR VAIDYA (AIR 1951 SC 157)" and in "STATE OF TAMIL NADU v. SENTHIL KUMAR (1999 SCC (Crl.) 299)".