JAHUFER AYSA Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the wife of the detenu M.Ahamed. THE detenu has been branded as smuggler and detained by the impugned order with a view to effectively preventing him from indulging in smuggling activities in future, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 3(1) (ii) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (Central Act 52 of 1974). Challenging the above said order of detention, the present Habeas Corpus Petition is filed.

(2.) THE detention order came to be passed following the detenu indulged in the smuggling activity that the occurrence was said to have been taken place on 09.08.2007 that the detenu, who was passenger then and bound for Kuala Lumpur by Malaysian Airlines Flight MH-0181/09.08.2007 from Chennai was intercepted during the course of surveillance that the said surveillance was made on the basis of the information that huge quantity of 'Ketamine Hydrochloride' has been kept concealed in a baggage that w hen the detenu was about to board the flight with a blue and black colour hand bag, he was intercepted at aero-bridge of the said flight and brought back to Airport that on a thorough search made on the baggage, it was found to contain packets with description -Annapurna Farm Fresh 100% Wheat Atta-, -Pilsbury Chakki Fresh Atta- in heat sealed condition that the total number of such packets were found to be 25 that on cutting open each of the said heat sealed packets, silver foiled packets in 24 numbers with markings 'A', 'B', 'C', '1', '2' and one without any marking were found that on further cutting open of the same, white colour sugar like granular substance was found that apart from the said 25 packets , 12 nos. of small sized packets having 'Dry Sundaikai Chips' and one packet containing 500 small packets of 'Nizam' brand betal nut were found that on enquiry the detenu had stated that the white colour granular substance was Ketamine Hydrochloride, a chemical which requires declaration that the contrabands were confiscated and the contents in all the 25 packets totally weighed 24.500 kgs that as per Section 113(h) of the Customs Act, 1962, any goods which are not included or in excess of those included in the entry made under the Act, or in the case of baggage in the declaration made under Section 77 is liable to confiscation under the Act that same is an offence and also punishable under Section 113 of the Act and that therefore, the order of detention came to be passed with a view to effectively preventing the detenu from indulging in smuggling activities in future.

(3.) PER contra, Mr.M.Babu Muthu Meeran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that the disposal of the representation by the State Government would arise only in the event, such a representation is made. In the present case, the records would show that no such representation was received in the Ministry of Law, Government of Tamil Nadu. Hence, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the pre detention was not considered is not acceptable.