HARPINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE detenu has filed this Habeas Corpus Petition challenging the order of detention dated 28.7.2006 passed by the Government of Tamil Nadu detaining the detenu under Section 3(1)(i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (Central Act 52 of 1974), hereinafter referred to as "the Act".

(2.) THE order of detention has been passed on the following grounds:- On 26.6.2006, the detenu arrived at Chennai from Bangkok by flight. When he was questioned, the detenu produced five Baggage Claim Tags, out of which 4 were in the name of the detenu. THE detenu declared that the checked in baggage as well as hand baggage were containing clothes, cosmetics and personal belongings and all the checked in baggage were held up at Bangkok. Examination of hand baggage resulted in recovery of 1040 nos of 512 MB Multimedia Cards, value of which was Rs.6,24,000/- and the said goods were seized. In the voluntary statement, the detenu confessed about the aforesaid aspects. By attempting to smuggle 512 MB Multimedia Cards by way of misdeclaration with an intention to evade customs duty in violation of Sections 72 and 79 of the Customs Act, the detenu was liable to be prosecuted under Sections 132 and 135 of the Customs Act as well as Section 112 of the Customs Act. On further verification it was found that the checked in baggage had been sent to Chennai along with passenger and no baggage was pending in the custody of airways either in Chennai or in Bangkok. From the above basic materials, the State Government being satisfied that the detenu had involved in smuggling goods, considered necessary to pass the order of detention.

(3.) IN (1992)2 CTC 490 (T.M. SYED ALI v . STATE OF TAMIL NADU), a Division Bench of this Court held that representation made denying the very occurrence before passing of the order of detention is required to be considered by the detaining authority. IN the said case it was also indicated that it is the duty of the functioning authority to forward such representation to the Government and failure to consider such representation would vitiate the order of detention.