CHINNASAMY Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITION filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to produce the detenu Kannusamy Thirugnanam, Son of S.Kannusamy, aged 20 years who is detained in Central Prison,. Puzhal, Chennai in pursuance of detention order dated 20.9.2008 in G.O.No.S.R.1/596-5/2008 before this Court to call for the records, set aside the order and set the detenu at liberty forthwith.) Challenge is made to an order of the second respondent in G.O.No.S.R.1/596-5/2008 dated 20.9.2008 whereby one Kannusamy Thirugnanam was ordered to be detained under Section 3(1)(i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974.

(2.) THE affidavit in support of the petition along with all the materials including the order under challenge are perused. THE Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

(3.) ADDED further learned counsel, in a given case like this, when the relied on document namely, on what basis the value was arrived at were not furnished to the detenu and even after the representations and the subjective satisfaction recorded by the authorities as found in order could not have been arrived properly and on that ground also the order suffers. Learned counsel would further add, it is not the case of the department that the detenu was making often or frequent visit to the foreign countries. This was the only visit made by him. It is true that the authorities have not observed in the order that there was frequent visit. It was stated in the order that he would indulge in such activities in future. In order to take such a view that the detenu would indulge in such activities in future, there was no material available at all.