PEER MOHAMMED Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein challenges the impugned order of detention, dated 23. 12. 2005, detaining his son by name Maideen under the provisions of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974.

(2.) HEARD Mr. B. Kumar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner; Mr. M. Babu Muthu Meeran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for R-1; and Mr. P. Kumaresan, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel for R-3.

(3.) MR. B. Kumar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, after taking us through the grounds of detention, materials supplied to the detenu and all other connected papers, has raised the following contentions, a. There has been no proper valuation relating to the goods seized from the detenu, therefore, there is non application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority. b. Though in the representation sent by the father of the detenu/petitioner, several details/particulars had been furnished to show that the watches alleged to have been seized from the detenu could never be valued more than Rs. 20/- piece; the same were not properly considered; hence, the consideration of the representation is vitiated.