MOHAMMED HANEEFA Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE father of the detenu by name Mohamed Hanifa Rahumathali, challenges the order dated 23. 09. 2004 passed by the first respondent detaining his son Mohamed Hanifa Rahumathali, under Section 3 (1) (i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA in short ).

(2.) HEARD Mr. B. Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. A. Kandasamy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the first respondent and Mrs. Vanathi Srinivasan, Additional Central Government Standing Counsel for the second respondent.

(3.) THOUGH several contentions have been raised questioning the impugned order of detention, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner at the foremost submitted that the detaining authority has erred in relying upon Section 123 of the Customs Act and for having cast the burden of proof on the detenu. According to him, it is impermissible and in the proceedings of preventive detention, Section 123 of the Customs Act can have no application. In support of his above contention, he relied on the earlier Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Gunasundari vs. State of Tamil Nadu, etc. , and another reported in 2003-2-L. W. (Crl.)884.