DAKU DEVI Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE wife of the detenu has filed this Habeas Corpus petition challenging the order of preventive detention dated 6. 4. 2004 passed under Section 3 (1) (i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (Central Act 52 of 1974), hereinafter referred to as COFEPOSA.

(2.) THE grounds of detention dated 6. 4. 2004 indicate that the officers of Customs at Chennai on 12. 2. 2004 examined containers of export goods covered by nine shipping bills, which were filed under claim for draw back by the exporters M. J. Fabrics, Chennai. Such bills have been filed through customs House Agent named M/s. Logistic Enterprises Ltd. As per the grounds of detention, the description declared in the shipping bills did not tally with the description of the goods actually found on examination, and therefore, the goods were seized. It was found that there was shortage of pieces of readymade garments as against the declared quantity, but on the declared value of the said shipping bills, which was inflated, the draw back amount was claimed. THEreafter, the Customs officials visited the premises of M/s. M. J. Fabrics at a particular address, which address was also given for two more export companies, namely, M/s. Om Te x and M/s. Raj Tex , but it was found that the premises were locked. THE residential house of the detenu was searched on 13. 2. 2004 and certain documents were seized as per the mahazar. THE officers also searched the shop of the detenu in the name of M/s. Pooja Fabrics, but no incriminating document was seized therefrom. On the very same day, i. e. , 13. 2. 2004, statement of the detenu was recorded in Hindi under Section 108 of the Customs Act, wherein it was inter-alia stated that the detenu was the proprietor of M/s. M. J. Fabrics having office at No. 87, M. C. Road, Manish arcade, Room No. 7, Second Floor, Chennai-21, without proper office and there was only a Post Box to receive postal deliveries. In the statement, it was further indicated that the detenu had taken an Importer and Exporter Code by giving false name, namely, Hitesh Joshi Dinesh Joshi and also indicated that the detenu had obtained Importer and Exporter Code in the name of M. J. Fabrics as a merchant exporter. As the detenu was not well versed in writing English, a broker had helped him in getting the IE Code number and opening a bank account. Further, the detenu purchased cheap quality readymade garments and exported more than 65 consignments in the name of M. J. Fabrics to M/s. Jaffer Enterprises, colombo and cheap quality readymade garments were exported by highly inflating the value and misdeclaring the description and quantity in order to avail higher drawback. On the very same day, the detenu was arrested and remanded to custody by a Judicial Magistrate. Subsequently, a representation was received from the wife of the detenu, contending that the statement recorded was not a voluntary statement of the detenu and thereafter, a representation dated

(3.) FROM the grounds of detention itself, it is apparent that the detenu was not conversant in English. As a matter of fact, the statement of the detenu, on the basis of which the grounds of detention was passed, was in Hindi. Such statement also indicates that the detenu does not know how to write English. The detenu himself had made a representation indicating that he does not know English and Hindi translation of several documents relied upon by the detaining authority should be furnished.