SITTHI ZURAINA BEGUM Vs. UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(SC)-2002-11-72
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
November 22,2002
SITTHI ZURAINA BEGUM
Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
M AHAMEDKUTTY VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]RUMANA BEGUM VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
RAJAMMAL VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
POWANAMMAL VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
CHOWDARAPU RAGHUNANDAN VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH GULATI VS. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
SATWINDER SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2003-2-52] [REFERRED]PRADUMAN SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2004-5-83] [REFERRED TO]
GIAN CHAND KOCHAR VS. HONBLE LT GOVERNOR [LAWS(DLH)-2006-6-19] [REFERRED TO]
KSHETRIMAYUM PRAKASH SINGH ALIAS PAKA VS. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE IMPHAL WEST DISTRICT LAMPHELPAT [LAWS(GAU)-2005-12-16] [REFERRED TO]
SUBRATA PAUL VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GAU)-2007-2-16] [REFERRED TO]
JURI GOGOI ALIAS CHENIMAI GOGOI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GAU)-2009-12-21] [REFERRED TO]
R Rajkumar VS. State of Tamil Nadu [LAWS(MAD)-2004-10-130] [REFERRED TO]
SHAIKH MOHAMMED SAEED KARAMATULLAH VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2003-11-46] [REFERRED TO]
SHAIKH MOHAMMED SAEED KARAMATULLAH VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2003-12-49] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAN CHHATURMAL VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2004-1-8] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAN BHOJANIA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2005-2-79] [REFERRED TO]
SALIYAL BEEVI VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2011-9-32] [REFERRED TO]
VARSHA SHYAM AMLANI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2006-10-103] [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY KRISHNANGOTHAL VS. CHANDRA IYENGAR [LAWS(BOM)-2007-8-12] [REFERRED TO]
SAFIYA VS. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2003-2-90] [REFERRED TO]
NISSA HASSAN VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2005-9-40] [REFERRED TO]
SATIF IQBAL VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2005-1-25] [REFERRED TO [ 10 ]]
MADHU GARG VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(P&H)-2004-4-8] [REFERRED TO]
SARFARAJ @ TYSON GULAM JAFAR SHAIKH THRO JAINAB BIBI SARFA VS. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE OF CITY OF AHMEDABAD [LAWS(GJH)-2008-6-203] [REFERRED TO]
LEEMA SEBASTIAN VS. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS. [LAWS(KER)-2015-8-105] [REFERRED TO]
SHRI OMPRAKASH TRILOKI CHANDWANI VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2016-4-301] [REFERRED TO]
SHAIKH MOHAMMED SAEED KARAMATULLAH VS. SUPERINTENDENT OF PRISON [LAWS(BOM)-2003-11-124] [REFERRED]
NAUSHEENA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2017-3-5] [REFERRED TO]
NAUSHEENA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2017-3-94] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Rajendra Babu, J. -
(1.)T. Mohamed Nazeer, husband of the petitioner herein, (hereinafter referred to as the detenu) was detained under Section 3(1)(i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (Central Act 52 of 1974) (for short the Act) by an order made on 7-5-2002. He is at present confined in Central Prison, Chennai, Tamil Nadu.
(2.)The gist of the allegations made against the detenu is that the Customs Authorities seized 200 cellphones, 4 cordless phones (base and handset), 4 cordless phones and 350 carphones totally valued at Rupees 13, 19,500/- from the baggages of the detenu after he came from Singapore and landed at Chennai Anna International Airport along with his baggages on 20-3-2002; that in the declaration filed by the detenu goods valued at Rs. 80,000/- had been disclosed, while he was bringing goods valued at Rs. 13, 19,500/- into India without payment of appropriate customs duty by misdeclaration and concealment; that he made a statement on 20-3-2002 before the DRI Officer confirming the seizure of the aforesaid goods and admitting the commission of an offence under the Customs Act. The detenu filed a bail application in March 22, 2002 before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Economic Offences-II, Chennai, claiming that he was innocent and had not committed the alleged offence. The learned Magistrate dismissed the said bail application on 10-4-2002.
(3.)In the meanwhile, the petitioner wrote a letter to the Finance Secretary, Ministry of Finance, complaining about the ill-treatment meted out to the detenu and the retracted statement made by the detenu before the concerned authorities. The grievance now made is that the order of preventive detention is passed against the detenu as stated earlier in spite of retraction of the earlier statement given to DRI. Now challenging the detention, this writ petition is filed :
(2.)The gist of the allegations made against the detenu is that the Customs Authorities seized 200 cellphones, 4 cordless phones (base and handset), 4 cordless phones and 350 carphones totally valued at Rupees 13, 19,500/- from the baggages of the detenu after he came from Singapore and landed at Chennai Anna International Airport along with his baggages on 20-3-2002; that in the declaration filed by the detenu goods valued at Rs. 80,000/- had been disclosed, while he was bringing goods valued at Rs. 13, 19,500/- into India without payment of appropriate customs duty by misdeclaration and concealment; that he made a statement on 20-3-2002 before the DRI Officer confirming the seizure of the aforesaid goods and admitting the commission of an offence under the Customs Act. The detenu filed a bail application in March 22, 2002 before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Economic Offences-II, Chennai, claiming that he was innocent and had not committed the alleged offence. The learned Magistrate dismissed the said bail application on 10-4-2002.
(3.)In the meanwhile, the petitioner wrote a letter to the Finance Secretary, Ministry of Finance, complaining about the ill-treatment meted out to the detenu and the retracted statement made by the detenu before the concerned authorities. The grievance now made is that the order of preventive detention is passed against the detenu as stated earlier in spite of retraction of the earlier statement given to DRI. Now challenging the detention, this writ petition is filed :
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.