MOHAMED HANIF MOHAMED SIDDIQUE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Abdul Kadar Mohamed Hanif Anajwala (hereinafter referred to as the 'detenu') was detained by an order dated June 17, 1983 passed by the Government of Maharashtra, issued under Sub -section (1) of Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the 'COFEPOSA Act') with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods and abetting the smuggling of goods. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the father of the said detenue challenging the said detention order.

(2.) THE grounds of detention dated June 17, 1983 and the documents relied upon and considered for the purpose of passing the detention order were supplied to the detenue. The allegations on which the detenue was ordered to be detained were that on March 9, 1983 while travelling to Dubai from Bombay by flight No. GF 037 he was found in possession of foreign currencies equivalent to Indian Rs. 94,963.25 which he attempted to smuggle out of India. The officers of the Air Intelligence Unit attached to the Sahar Air -port intercepted him on suspicion and recovered the said foreign currencies which were concealed in a polythene bag kept in a plastic container of Gomda vanaspati and that too so cleverly as to give an impression that he was carrying dry pickle in the said container. The container was found in his suit case.

(3.) SECONDLY , Mr. Siwani contended that the copies of some of the documents supplied to the detenu were so illegible that the detenu could not make an effective representation to the Government under Article 22(5) of the Constitution. Mr. Siwani showed us page Nos. 16, 17 and 18 of the documents supplied to the detenu in support of his contention. Apart from the fact that Mr. B. K. Chougule denied in his affidavit that some of the copies of documents furnished to the detenu were illegible, we ourselves went through the so -called illegible documents shown to us by Mr. Siwani and we were satisfied that one could easily read these statements. We, therefore, find no substance in this contention raised by Mr. Siwani.