LICIL ANTONY Vs. STATE OF KERALA
LAWS(SC)-2014-4-34
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: KERALA)
Decided on April 15,2014

Licil Antony Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF KERALA Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

NAVEEN KASERA VS. UNION OF INDIA SECRETARY MINISTRY OF FINANCE [LAWS(DLH)-2021-9-101] [REFERRED TO]
ANITA ANTONY VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2022-6-110] [REFERRED TO]
VAISHNAVI P. VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2024-8-43] [REFERRED TO]
HARMEET SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2021-2-81] [REFERRED TO]
BHUSHAN VIJAY RANE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2016-10-237] [REFERRED TO]
AMIT PAL SINGH VS. JOINT SECRETARY COFEPOSA [LAWS(DLH)-2021-8-156] [REFERRED TO]
MALATHY RAVI VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2023-9-180] [REFERRED TO]
PESALA NOOKARAJU VS. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(SC)-2023-8-61] [REFERRED TO]
ANJU P.ANILKUMAR VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2023-3-195] [REFERRED TO]
SUNEERA T VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2024-8-40] [REFERRED TO]
ARJUN BALKRISHNA SONAVANE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2016-9-165] [REFERRED TO]
MUNNA GOYAL VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2020-11-170] [REFERRED TO]
ANSAR VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2017-3-33] [REFERRED TO]
KUMARAN VS. DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KOZHIKODE AND ORS. [LAWS(KER)-2015-9-166] [REFERRED TO]
MOHD NASHRUDDIN KHAN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2020-9-51] [REFERRED TO]
GOPAL GUPTA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2021-8-47] [REFERRED TO]
BHAWANI VERMA VS. UOI AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2015-9-38] [REFERRED TO]
SHAFEEQ P.K. VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2016-3-161] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)Petitioner Licil Antony happens to be the wife of detenu Antony Morris and aggrieved by the order dated 6th of November, 2013 passed by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 412 of 2013 declining to quash the order of detention passed under Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, hereinafter referred to as "COFEPOSA", has preferred this special leave petition.
(2.)Leave granted.
(3.)Shorn of unnecessary details, facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on the allegation that the appellant's husband Antony Morris, hereinafter referred to as the detenu, intended to export red sanders through International Container Trans-shipment Terminal, was arrested on 17th of November, 2012 by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence and a case was registered against him. He was released on bail by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Ernakulam. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, hereinafter referred to as 'DRI', by its letter dated 17th of December, 2012 made recommendation for the detenu's detention besides two others under Section 3 of the COFEPOSA alleging that they are part of a well- organised gang operating in smuggling of red sanders in India and abroad. The proposals of the DRI, hereinafter referred to as the sponsoring authority, were received in the office of the detaining authority on 21st of December, 2012. The detaining authority after scrutiny and evaluation of the proposals and the documents, decided on 25th of January, 2013 to place the proposals before the screening committee and forwarded the same to it on 1st of February, 2013. The proposals of the detenu's detention along with two others were considered by the screening committee which concurred with the recommendation of the sponsoring authority. The detaining authority considered the facts and circumstances of the case as also the reports of the sponsoring authority and the screening committee and other materials running over 1000 pages and took decision on 15th of April, 2013 to detain the detenu and two others. Draft grounds for detention in English were approved on 19th of April, 2013 and as one of the detenue was a Tamilian, time till 3rd of May, 2013 was taken for translation of the documents relied on in Malyalam and Tamil and for preparation of sufficient number of copies. Ultimately, with a view to prevent the detenu from engaging in the smuggling of goods, the detaining authority passed order of detention dated 6th of May, 2013. It was served on the detenu on 11th of June, 2013. The grounds of detention dated 8th of May, 2013 were made available to the detenu on 13th of June, 2013. The detenu was produced before the Advisory Board, which found sufficient grounds for his continued detention and, accordingly, the detaining authority issued order dated 24th of August, 2013, and confirmed the order of detention for a period of one year with effect from 11th of June, 2013, the date of detention.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.