ROJA BEGAM Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. B. Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. M. Babu Muthu Meeran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent and Mr. P.Kumaresan, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel for the second respondent.

(2.) THE order of detention dated 16.10.2006 under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act is in challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition. THE brief facts as gleaned from the grounds of detention are as follows: On 23.9.2006, the detenu arrived at Anna International Airport, Chennai from Singapore and by going through the red channel, he declared the goods valued at Rs.1,00,000/-. THE goods consisted of Panasonic Digital Video Cameras, Panasonic Projector as well as certain automobile parts. THE Customs Authorities DRI Officers intercepted the detenu at the red channel and calculated the value of the goods at Rs.6,19,320/-. In the grounds of detention para (ii), it is specifically stated that "the total value of the above said goods was arrived at Rs.6,19,320/- with the assistance of the Customs Officers, internet and on market enquiries and the DRI Officers seized them under the said mahazar on the reasonable belief that the same were liable to be confiscation under the Customs Act, 1962 since the same were in trade quantity and therefore not a bonafide passenger baggage and you have not declared some of the goods and under-declared the values of declared goods.

(3.) IN the above background, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the detaining authority had arrived at a particular valuation with the assistance of the Customs Officers, internet and on market enquiries, it was incumbent upon the authorities to furnish the copies of such materials, as such materials must be taken to be relied upon materials and non-furnishing of such materials violates the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of INdia. IN this connection, it is further submitted that the materials were also not furnished even after a specific request was made in the representation. IN such a case, it would amount to non supply of relevant materials depriving the detenu the opportunity of making an effective representation and therefore, it can be also said Article 22(5) has been violated.