CHOWDARAPU RAGHUNANDAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU
LAWS(SC)-2002-3-7
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
March 15,2002
CHOWDARAPU RAGHUNANDAN
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF TAMIL NADU
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
MOHAMMAD SUBRATI ALIAS MOHAMMAD KARIM VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED]DEBU MAHATO VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED]
ANIL DEY VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED]
ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR INDIA VS. AMRATLAL PRAJIVANDAS [REFERRED]
V C MOHAN VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED]
Cited Judgements :-
RAMAN KUMAR SHARMA ALIAS A K A PANDIT VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2009-5-212] [REFERRED TO]SUNDERBHAI HIRABHAI VEGADA VS. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AHMEDABAD [LAWS(GJH)-2002-6-43] [RELIED ON]
KAUSHALBHAI RAMESHBHAI DESAI VS. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE SURAT [LAWS(GJH)-2005-3-46] [REFERRED TO]
Umesh Maheshwari VS. State of Uttaranchal [LAWS(ALL)-2006-6-6] [REFERRED TO]
MOIRANTHEM ONGBI ALIAS BIBI DEVI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GAU)-2004-11-6] [REFERRED TO]
K AMARNATH VS. COLLOECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE R R DIST [LAWS(APH)-2004-8-108] [REFERRED TO]
DODDI SHARADA VS. COLLECTOR AND DIST MAGISTRATE HYD [LAWS(APH)-2005-1-16] [REFERRED TO]
LALITHA VS. STATE OF A P [LAWS(APH)-2007-5-13] [REFERRED TO]
CHAYA GHOSHAL VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-2003-8-37] [REFERRED TO]
JITENDRA JHA VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-2010-7-19] [REFERRED TO]
S Mohammed Ali VS. State [LAWS(MAD)-2003-9-55] [REFERRED TO]
R Rajkumar VS. State of Tamil Nadu [LAWS(MAD)-2004-10-130] [REFERRED TO]
RIZWANA ZIYATH VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2006-2-222] [REFERRED TO]
P SATHASIVAM VS. RIZWANA ZIYATH [LAWS(MAD)-2006-2-59] [REFERRED TO]
KIRTI KUMAR NIRULA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(SC)-2004-9-87] [REFERRED TO]
POOJA BATRA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2009-3-154] [REFERRED TO]
GIMIK PIOTR VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(SC)-2009-11-33] [REFERRED TO]
SITTHI ZURAINA BEGUM VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2002-11-72] [REFERRED TO]
DIMPLE PRAKASH SHAH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2010-4-5] [REFERRED TO]
DIMPLE PRAKASH SHAH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2010-4-14] [REFERRED TO]
RIBU KURIAN NINAN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2010-12-229] [REFERRED TO]
VAHIDBHAI SAIYADBHAI SHEIKH VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2003-8-61] [REFERRED]
MYMOONA VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2002-7-33] [REFERRED TO]
CHONARI SULEKHA VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2002-9-71] [REFERRED TO]
AYSHA NAZREEM VS. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2002-9-72] [REFERRED TO]
FIROZ MOHOMEDALI MAMDANI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2004-1-23] [REFERRED TO]
FATHIMATHU ZOHRA VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2008-9-181] [REFERRED TO]
A SUNDARAM VS. STATE OF TAMILNADU [LAWS(MAD)-2010-6-160] [REFERRED TO]
RAVI SHANKAR PANDEY VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2004-8-84] [REFERRED TO]
UMESH MAHESHWARI VS. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL [LAWS(UTN)-2006-6-4] [REFERRED TO]
NASIR ISMAIL MUJAVAR VS. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [LAWS(BOM)-2012-9-19] [REFERRED TO]
DIMPLE PRAKASH SHAH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2010-12-308] [REFERRED TO]
TAUFIQUE VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-2013-7-54] [REFERRED TO]
AMALESH SINGH VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2009-7-118] [REFERRED TO]
HARPAL SINGH @ HEERE VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2009-7-119] [REFERRED TO]
M. GUNASUNDARI VS. JOINT SECRETARY (COFEPOSA),GOVERNMENT OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2014-8-188] [REFERRED TO]
SAJAD AHMAD BHAT VS. STATE [LAWS(J&K)-2005-12-23] [REFERRED TO]
KALA CHAND BANERJEE VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [LAWS(CAL)-2003-7-65] [REFERRED TO]
GAJJU VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2021-5-35] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Petitioner has challenged the detention order dated 28th May, 2001 passed under S. 3(1)(i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as "COFEPOSA") with a view to prevent him from smuggling goods in future. The allegations against the petitioner in the grounds of detention are that he was holding an Indian Passport dated 26th October, 1994 and he arrived from Singapore on 30th March, 2001 at Chennai Airport. After completing migration formalities, he collected his baggages and was proceeding to exit gate where he was intercepted by Customs Intelligence Officer on suspicion that he might be carrying any dutiable goods. From his possession, Panasonic GD 92 Cellphones with accessories 100 Nos., Nokia 3310 Cellphones with accessories 50 Nos., Siemens C35 Cellphones with accessories 50 Nos., Nokia cellphone adapter 100 Nos., Nokia 5110 cellphone batteries 100 Nos. were recovered. According to the grounds of detention, the value of the seized goods was Rs. 13,90,000/-. His Boarding Pass and Customs Declaration Card were also seized. It is alleged that in his voluntary statement he admitted that he had visited Singapore twice earlier as a tourist he had gone to Singapore on 29th March, 2001 and that his friend helped him in procuring cellphones to market them in India for monetary consideration.
(2.)Petitioner was arrested on 31st March, 2001 and his bail application was rejected by the trial Court. Thereafter, he sent a representation dated 24th April, 2001 to the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai through the Superintendent, Central Prison, Chennai, stating that the seized goods did not belong to him. Thereafter, on 28th May, 2001, the impugned detention order was passed.
(3.)At the time of hearing of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was total non-application of mind by the detaining authority before passing the impugned order; relevant record was not placed before the detaining authority and that there was delay in considering the representations. For the first ground, it has been contended that the petitioner was not involved in any smuggling activities and for the time being presuming that goods seized were of the petitioner it would hardly be a ground for detaining him under the COFEPOSA. The detaining authority has not considered the fact that it was the contention of the petitioner all throughout that he had not brought the said cellphones. For that purpose, he submitted that the boarding card was his but the baggages having no tags were not belonging to him. In any set of circumstances for the alleged incident, criminal prosecution was pending against him and his bail applications were rejected, therefore, there was no necessity of detaining the petitioner.
(2.)Petitioner was arrested on 31st March, 2001 and his bail application was rejected by the trial Court. Thereafter, he sent a representation dated 24th April, 2001 to the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai through the Superintendent, Central Prison, Chennai, stating that the seized goods did not belong to him. Thereafter, on 28th May, 2001, the impugned detention order was passed.
(3.)At the time of hearing of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was total non-application of mind by the detaining authority before passing the impugned order; relevant record was not placed before the detaining authority and that there was delay in considering the representations. For the first ground, it has been contended that the petitioner was not involved in any smuggling activities and for the time being presuming that goods seized were of the petitioner it would hardly be a ground for detaining him under the COFEPOSA. The detaining authority has not considered the fact that it was the contention of the petitioner all throughout that he had not brought the said cellphones. For that purpose, he submitted that the boarding card was his but the baggages having no tags were not belonging to him. In any set of circumstances for the alleged incident, criminal prosecution was pending against him and his bail applications were rejected, therefore, there was no necessity of detaining the petitioner.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.