BHAVESH RAJENDRABHAI DANI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Counsel for the parties. By consent, the matter was proceeded for final disposal as was indicated in the order issuing notice.

(2.) BY this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is prayed that the preventive detention order dated 19th December, 2009, issued by the Principal Secretary (Appeals and Security), Government of Maharashtra, Home Department and Detaining Authority in exercise of powers conferred under section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (In short, COFEPOSA Act, 1974), against the detenu Pravinchandra Mansukhlal Wadecha, be quashed and set aside and the detenu be set at liberty forthwith. From the grounds of detention, it is noticed that on 29th April, 2009, the detenu was arrested by Officers of AIU, who intercepted the detenu at Boarding Gate No. 6, while keeping surveillance on the passengers. On examination of the hand baggage and check in baggages of the detenu, it was noticed that he was carrying assorted foreign currency equivalent to Indian Rs. 16,37,570/-. The foreign currency consisted of US$ 28685, UAE Dirham 440, South African Rand 1780, Turkey yen 90, Israeli Shekel 350, Jordan Dinar 09 and Swiss Franc 20. Upon recording statement of the detenu under section 108 of the Custom Act,. 1962, the detenu admitted his possession, carriage, recovery of the foreign currency under seizure. According to the petitioner, the detenu was produced before the Magistrate on 30th April, 2009 and after initial remand order, was released on bail on 4th May, 2009. After release, his further statements were recorded in May, 2009. The detenu then received show- cause, notice dated 27th October, 2009 and came to be detained by AIU on 1 st January, 2010, purportedly in connection with the, impugned preventive detention order dated 19th December, 2009. We shall refer to the other relevant factual matrix at the appropriate stage while dealing with the grounds of challenge in the present petition.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner had invited our attention to the documents Exh. F collectively, which according to the petitioner would indicate different fact situation. The said document dated January 5, 2010, is a reply submitted by the Senior Police Inspector, Sahar Police Station, in respect of the grievance of the detenu, made in the application filed before the Magistrate on 2nd January, 2010, about his illegal detention. The said report suggests that the detenu was arrested and was handed over to Sahar Police Station at 16.05 hrs. The accompanying documents being case diary reinforces the factual statement made in the said report.