MOHAMMAD ASHRAF Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner, who is the brother of the detenu Abdulla Abdul khadir, has impugned the detention order dated 12th March, 1997, passed by respondent No. 2, Shri G. S. Sandhu, The secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department, (Preventive Detention) and Detaining Authority detaining the detenu under section 3 (1) of the Conservation of Foreign exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as COFEPOSA ). The detention order along with the grounds of detention bearing the said date, was contemporaneously served on the detenu on 18-12- 1997.

(2.) THE prejudicial activities of the detenu contained in the grounds of detention are as under : On 18-10-1996 on the basis of prior information, the officers of the Customs, Preventive Commissionerate, Mumbai, intercepted the detenu who had cleared the immigration and customs formalities and was on the way to depart to Dubai by air India Flight NO. AI-709. On his personal search foreign currencies to the tune of Rs. 3,94,368/- were found. He admitted that he was carrying 82 capsules in his stomach and volunteered to eject the same. On ejecting the same foreign currencies equivalent to the tune of Rs. 8,95,694/- in terms of Indian money were found. The said currencies were seized under a panchanama. Since the detenu had failed to produce any permit from the Reserve Bank of India, under the reasonable belief that they were attempted to be smuggled out of India and thus liable to be confiscated under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Foreign exchange Regulations Act, 1973 the same were seized under a panchanama. In his statement under section 108 of the Customs Act the detenu admitted that the said currency was given to him by a person called Rehman and was to be handed over to one ahmed at Dubai.

(3.) ON 24-10-1996 the detenu was produced before the chief Metropolitan Magistrate, who remanded him to judicial custody till 27-10-1996. He was granted bail on 28-10-1996 and he availed of the bail on 11-12-1996. In the grounds it has been alleged that in order to prevent the detenu from engaging in such prejudicial activities in future it was imperative to detain him under COFEPOSA. A perusal of the grounds also shows that the detenu was apprised of his right to make representation to the various authorities.