FATHIMA RIHANA Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FATHIMA Rihana, wife of Mujebu Rahuman, a detenu, who was detained and kept in custody in Central Prison, Chennai under Section 3 (1) (i) of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities (COFEPOSA) Act, 1974 challenges the same in this petition. The Government of Tamil Nadu with a view to prevent the detenu, who is a resident of Chrompet, Chennai-44, from smuggling goods in future exercising powers conferred under COFEPOSA Act, clamped the impugned detention order detaining him in prison.

(2.) HEARD Mr. B. Kumar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. Kandasamy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for first respondent and Mrs. Vanathi Srinivasan for 2nd respondent.

(3.) THOUGH several grounds have been raised questioning the impugned order of detention, Mr. B. Kumar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, confined his argument, namely, that in the show cause notice dated 13-12-2004 issued by Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (D. R. I.), Chennai, there is no averment that Mother Board and Populated PCB were kept concealed in the advanced Hybrid system, the department has no case that the above two Mother Board and Populated PCB were kept concealed in the advanced Hybrid system. Thus, according to the learned senior counsel, there was no concealment but they form part of the Hybrid system. The serious averments in the grounds of detention was false even according to the show cause notice issued by the D. R. I. He also contended that even though the petitioner had seriously highlighted that the Populated PCB and Mother Board are not separate items to be valued and there is no question of concealment as they are forming part of the instrument of Advanced Hybrid System, since right comments have not been offered by the sponsoring authority both to the State and the Central Government, they rejected the representation of the detenu on being told of incorrect misleading facts, hence the consideration of the representation has become seriously vitiated which violated Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India. He also pointed out that though in the copy of Mahazar supplied to the detenu it is mentioned that Panasonic Advanced Hybrid System Model No. KX-TA 308 (4 Numbers) in the grounds of detention (III), the detaining authority has mentioned the same as KX-TA 304 (4 Numbers ). This shows the detaining authority has not applied his mind while passing the order of detention.