K SAHARA BANU Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Sahara Banu is the wife of Kaleel Rahman, who has been detained, in pursuance of an order dated 28.6.1995, passed by the first respondent in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3(1)(i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (as amended) (Central Act 52 of 1974), with a view to preventing the detenu from smuggling goods in future.

(2.) Facts in brief, which led to the passing of the impugned order will have to be stated. Detenu Kaleel Rahman, holder of Indian Passport, was bound for Colombo by Flight IC 573 on 4.6.1995. At the Airport, on the basis of specific information, Intelligence Officers, intercepted the detenu, while he was waiting in the passenger lounge, for boarding the aircraft, after immigration, customs and security check. The detenu was questioned in the presence of witnesses, if he was in possession, of any foreign currency either in his baggage or on his person. The reply was in the negative. Thereafter, detailed examination, of the baggages of the detenu, was conducted and the same resulted in recovery of various foreign currency and travellers cheques, totally valued at Rs. 54,97,606/-. The foreign currency and travellers cheques were concealed in between lungies kept inside the checked-in bag. The foreign currency and travellers cheques were seized along with 20 lungies used, for concealing. The detenu volunteered a statement on 4.6.1995 immediately after seizure. Since the detenu was not in possession of any valid documents for export of foreign currencies and travellers cheques, he was arrested and produced on 5.6.1995 before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O.I), Madras, who remanded him to judicial custody till 19.6.1995. After follow-up action, impugned order was passed.

(3.) Mr. B. Kumar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, contended that the detaining authority, in the grounds of detention, had taken note of the fact that the remand of the detenu was extended upto 4.7.1995, in spite of absence of material before him to arrive at such a conclusion. He further submitted that such material was also not furnished, even after a demand for the said material, was made by the detenu through his representation. This ground forms part of paragraph 6 of the affidavit sworn to by the petitioner, which reads as here under: