G M MUTHU Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has been ordered to be detained under Section 3(1)(ii) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 by the first respondent and is now lodged in Central Prison, Madurai. Feeling aggrieved by the said detention, he has filed this habeas corpus petition challenging the legal and constitutional validity thereof.

(2.) It appears that the detenu is a travelling agent having his travelling agency known as "G.M. Muthu Travels" at Virudhunagar, Kamarajar District. He had employed one Chinna Nagayasamy as his employee who is alleged to have worked in the said travel agency for few days. On the alleged request of the said Chinna Nagayasamy, the detenu arranged passport, visa and air-ticket for his. travel to Singapore on the understanding that the said person after obtaining a job in Singapore and earning money, will pay back the cost. It also appears that on 27.10.1993, the detenu had taken the said Nagayasamy to Madras Airport for boarding the airlines flight to Singapore. He was found to be carrying a Britannia Milk Bikies cardboard carton and one brown colour bag which was found to be suspicious by the Customs Intelligence Officers. On a search of the said baggage, it was found to contain rice and assorted foreign currencies of various denominations and 500 rupee bundles of Indian currency. The said currency was seized after the search under a search memo prepared. On questioning, the said Nagayasamy stated that he resides at Virudhunagar for the time being and was introduced to the detenu who was running the travelling agency. He also stated that the carton containing the above said currency was being carried by him at the instance of the detenu and the said carton was handed over to him by a friend of the detenu. On the aforesaid statement, the detenu was apprehended and his statement recorded. In his statement the detenu informed that he had arranged the passport and ticket of the said Nagayasamy on the promise that the amount incurred would be paid from his earnings subsequently. The detenu also stated that the carton found with foreign currency was being handed over to the said Nagayasamy by a person who was known to him and since Nagayasamy was refusing to oblige the said person, he had requested Nagayasamy to help the said person by carrying the carton for delivery to the named person in Singapore. The detenu denied having any knowledge of the contents of the said carton. In spite of it, a criminal case was registered against him and he was arrested. On being produced before the Magistrate E.O.I, he was remanded to the judicial custody. The detenu filed bail applications which were earlier rejected, but subsequently he was released on bail on condition. It also appears that on being released on bail, the detenu sent a retraction letter stating that he was innocent and his statement was obtained by force. The sponsoring authority felt satisfied that the material collected by him during investigation was sufficient for ordering preventive detention of the petitioner and placed the said material for consideration of the detaining authority/first respondent. The respondent/detaining authority considered the said material and held that the detenu on being released on bail was likely to engage himself in prejudicial activity related to foreign exchange and hence there was the compelling necessity to order his detention under the Act. That is how the impugned order has been passed.

(3.) It appears that the detenu sent a representation on 12.3.1994 to the respondent/State Government. In the said representation, he requested that a copy thereof be forwarded to the Advisory Board and the Central Government for their consideration. The representation was accordingly forwarded to the Central Government which considered and rejected the same by order dated 18.4.1994.