R RAJKUMAR Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the detenu himself challenging the order of preventive detention dated 23. 12. 2003 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.) PETITIONER is a Srilankan national. The order of detention was served on 24. 12. 2003 along with the grounds of detention. In the grounds, it is indicated that the detenu was intercepted by the custom officials belonging to the Department of Revenue Intelligence. When questioned about possession of any foreign currency and declaration thereof, the detenu answered in negative. On a search of the detenu person, it was found that he was carrying 5250 Srilankan Rupees and 23 US Dollars in his pocket. Thereafter, the officers of Department of Revenue Intelligence checked the baggage of the detenu and it was found that foreign currencies (46,350 US Dollars) had been kept concealed in a cavity between two layers of the carton, wherein Godrej hair dye had been packed. The detenu gave a statement that the carton containing Godrej hair dye had been handed over by one Vijayakumar of Mannadi at Chennai with an instruction to handover to one Udayan of Srilanka and the detenu would be paid at the rate of Rs. 250/- (in Srilankan currency) per kg. by the aforesaid Udayan at the time of delivery of the goods. It was further stated by the petitioner that he did not know about the concealment of Dollars in such carton and had he known, he would not have committed the offence. The detenu after being arrested on 13. 12. 2003, on the basis of the aforesaid incident, was produced before the Judicial Magistrate-1, Trichy and was remanded. Subsequently, the preventive order of detention dated 23. 12. 2003 was passed.

(3.) ON the basis of the aforesaid factual background, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in view of the specific stand of the petitioner in his statement before the custom officials at the time when he was apprehended, there was no basis for passing an order of preventive detention, as there is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner had knowledge about the concealment of the foreign currency in the carton containing Godrej hair dye and, since the petitioner was innocent, no order of preventive detention should have been passed, and there was no basis for passing such an order. The petitioner has further submitted in this connection that the custom officials should have verified about the explanation given by the petitioner, by questioning Vijayakumar, who had handed over the carton containing Godrej hair dye.