LAWS(BOM)-2009-8-177

NILOFAR SIRAJ DARBAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided On August 17, 2009
NILOFAR SIRAJ DARBAR Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

(2.) These two writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner Smt Nilofar Darbar, the wife of Siraj Yusuf Darbar, who is detenue in W.P. No.587/2009 and the the petitioner Faizan Khalil son of Khalil Mohammed Hussain Abrahani who is detenue in W.P. No.588/2009, are being disposed of by a common judgment, as both of them involve common questions of law and facts. The impugned orders of detention were passed by the Principal Secretary (Appeals & Security), Government of Maharashtra, Home Department and Detaining Authority, Home Department (Special), Mantralaya, Mumbai (hereinafter referred as "detaining authority") on 12.1.2009 in respect of both the detenues on the same day vide Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as "the COFEPOSA Act") and the detenues were ordered to surrender with a view to prevent them in future from smuggling goods. The detenues surrendered in view of the Orders of detention on 16.2.2009 and according to the petitioners the grounds of detention were served on the detenues after fifth day of the Orders of detention.

(3.) The necessary facts which may be mentioned, as furnished for the grounds of detention, are that Officers of Mumbai Zonal Unit of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (D.R.I.) had collected an intelligence to the effect that certain importers were indulging in imports of assorted electronic goods by grossly undervaluing them. This under valuation of import consignments had resulted in evasion of customs duty to the tune of crores of rupees thereby causing huge loss to the State Exchequer. These two detenues were in connection with this intelligence inputs they were arrested on 4.5.2008 and subsequently released on bail. Thereafter, the orders of detention came to be passed. These orders of detention have been challenged mainly on the following grounds;