SYED BARKATH Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order of detention dated 2. 6. 2004 passed by Respondent No. 1 under Section 3 (1) (i) of the Conservation of Foreign exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (Central Act 52 of 1974) has been challenged in the present Habeas Corpus Petition filed by the brother of the detenu.

(2.) THE facts may be noticed in brief :-The detenu came from Singapore to Chennai by flight on 22. 5. 2004. While the detenu was proceeding, he was intercepted by the officials of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence and baggages were examined and the goods were inventorised and according to the officials of DRI, the goods were valued at Rs. 11,62,500/ -. Statement of the detenu was recorded. According to the affidavit filed in the Habeas Corpus Petition, the statement was not voluntary, and as per the directions given by the DRI officials, the statement was recorded. The statement indicated as if the goods were brought by the detenu under the instruction of one T. Mahesh. It is further stated in the affidavit that the detenu sent a retraction letter to the sponsoring authority on 24. 5. 2004. Ultimately, an order of detention was passed in respect of the detenu. Along with the present detenu, the aforesaid T. Mahesh was also detained. In the grounds of detention, it is indicated as if the smuggling activity had been done by the detenu as a carrier on behalf of T. Mahesh. To appreciate the contentions raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, it is unnecessary to go into other details of the detention order.

(3.) IT is not disputed that the Advisory Board while considering the detention of T. Mahesh, by its opinion dated 21. 7. 2004, opined that there was no sufficient reason to detain T. Mahesh. Ultimately, on the basis of such advice, the order of detention under COFEPOSA in respect of T. Mahesh was revoked on 27. 7. 2004. Subsequently, the Advisory Board considered the case of the present detenu and advised for continuing such detention and ultimately, such advice was accepted by the State Government and by order dated 27. 8. 2004, the order of detention was confirmed by the State Government.