BHUPATRAM SAVAJI PUROHIT Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH this writ petition, preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who describes himself as the uncle of the detenu Mohanlal Mishraji Purohit, hereinafter referred to as the detenu, has impugned the order dated 30-5-2001, passed by the second respondent Joyce Shankaran, Principal Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department (Preventive Detention) and detaining Authority, Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032, detaining the detenu under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (52 of 1974). hereinafter referred to as the "COFEPOSA Act 1974"). The detention order along with the grounds of detention, which are also dated 30-5-2001, was served on the detenu on 2-6-2001 and their true copies are annexed as Annexures A and B. respectively to this writ petition.

(2.) THE prejudicial activities of the detenu, prompting the second respondent to issue the impugned Order, are contained in the grounds of detention (Annexure-B). In short, their perusal would show that on the basis of a specific information recorded, the detenu and one Sadanand Sambhaji Rasam were intercepted and searched on 29-7-2000, along with two vehicles bearing Nos.MH-01-B-4869 and DL-96-B-3644. outside the exit of parking lot of Module-I, Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus and the search resulted in recovery of 830 Digital Video Discs of various English movies, valued at Rs.83,000/- and 7105 assorted wrist watches, valued at Rs.9,50,575/-. Both, the vehicles and the said articles were seized under panchnama. Thereafter statements of the detenu and Sadanand Sambhaji Rasam were recorded under section 163 of the Customs Act, 1962, wherein the detenu stated that he was working as a telephone operator in the firm Rian Communication, the owner of which was one Noor Mohammad Siddique Lakhani @ Ebrahim and he received Rs.10,000/- as salary. He also stated therein that Babubhai had asked him to visit Dubai/ Hongkong on a number of occasion to get watches smuggled into India and all his expenses were borne by him (Bababhai). He also stated therein that at the instance of Bababhai, he along with his associate Sadanand Sambhaji Rasam had visited the airport to receive consignment smuggled into India by two carriers, namely Sanjay Chabria and Rahul, both N.R.I.s and the above mentioned goods were recovered from him. A perusal of paragraph 7 of the grounds of detention would show that since the detenu was involved in smuggling of goods, respondent No.2 felt that it was imperative to detain him under the COFEPOSA Act, 1974.

(3.) GROUND 5(v) has been replied to in two returns, namely in those filed by Mr.R.D.Shinde. Deputy Secretary to Government of Maharashtra, Home Department (Special), Mantralaya, Mumbai, who has filed the return on behalf of the detaining authority, and that file by E.A. Joseph Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), R & I, Mumbai. In the former return, the said ground has been replied to in paragraph 10; in the latter in paragraph 6.