D ANURADHA Vs. JOINT SECRETARY
LAWS(SC)-2006-4-113
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: MADRAS)
Decided on April 24,2006

D.ANURADHA Appellant
VERSUS
JOINT SECRETARY Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

PRABHAKAR SHANKAR DHURI VS. S G PRADHAN [REFERRWED TO]
KANTI LAL BOSE VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRWED TO (PARA 12) 14.]
ASHADEVL WIFE OF GOPAL GHERMAL MEHTA DETENU VS. K SHIVRAJ ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT [REFERRWED TO (PARA 22) 13.]
FRANCES CORALIE MULLIN VS. W G KHAMBRA [REFERRWED TO (PARA 12) 12.]
ICCHU DEVI CHORARIA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRWED TO (PARA 6) 10.]
L M S UMMU SALEEMA VS. B B GUJARAL [REFERRWED TO (PARA 13) 11.]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. ZAVAD ZAMA KHAN [REFERRWED TO (PARA 16) 9.]
STTA RAM SOMANI VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRWED TO (PARA 22) 8.]
K ARUNA KUMARI VS. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRWED TO (PARA 16) 7.]
AYYA ALIAS AYUB VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRWED TO (PARA 22) 6.]
JAI PARKASH VS. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE BULANDSHAHAR U P [REFERRWED TO (PARA 11) 5.]
B ALAMELU VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRWED TO (PARA 10) 4.]
AHAMED NASSAR VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRWED TO (PARA 22) 3.]
UNION OF INDIA VS. PAUL MANICKAM [REFERRWED TO (PARA 17) 2.]



Cited Judgements :-

GAYATRI AGARWAL VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2006-8-233] [REFERRED TO]
VRUJLAL NATVARLAL RAYKUNDALIYA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2007-11-27] [REFERRED TO]
PRADEEP SINGH VS. ADHIKSHAK MANDAL/JANPAD KARAGAR GORAKHPUR [LAWS(ALL)-2007-2-43] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL KADER MIAH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GAU)-2006-11-22] [REFERRED TO]
R BASKARAN VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2006-12-110] [REFERRED TO]
VARSHA SHYAM AMLANI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2006-10-103] [REFERRED TO]
RAHILA SAEED MALIK VS. STATE OF MAHRASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2007-9-35] [REFERRED TO]
SAJID DILAWAR KHAN VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2008-2-31] [REFERRED TO]
RAMYA VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2009-6-113] [REFERRED TO]
ANJU MADAN LALWANI VS. DETAINING AUTHORITY [LAWS(BOM)-2012-4-96] [REFERRED TO]
MOHD SHAKIL KHAN VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2012-4-100] [REFERRED TO]
T P JOTHI PRAKASH ALIAS R PRABHU VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2010-7-338] [REFERRED TO]
MAYA AJIT SATAM VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2012-8-110] [REFERRED TO]
LANG KAMDENG GRACY VS. STATE OF MEGHALAYA [LAWS(GAU)-2007-11-37] [REFERRED TO . 3)]
RAVI HANUMANT THORAT VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2013-3-53] [REFERRED TO]
SAHIL JAIN VS. UOI [LAWS(DLH)-2013-11-67] [REFERRED TO]
SUBEDAR YADAV @ SANTAN JEE @ RAMASHANKAR JEE VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2009-3-162] [REFERRED TO]
H.S. Mohanamba W/o Yellaiah VS. Ms. Vatsala Watsa, Principal Secretary to Government, Department of Home, The Principal Secretary, Government of Karnataka, Home Department, The Secretary to Government, Union of India (UOI), Ministry of Finance, [LAWS(KAR)-2007-3-86] [REFERRED TO]
KOMAR T. SANGMA VS. THE STATE OF MEGHALAYA [LAWS(MEGH)-2014-8-15] [REFERRED TO]
SHRI PAONAM SHANTIKUMAR @ SHANTI VS. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, IMPHAL WEST MANIPUR AND OTHERS [LAWS(MANIP)-2016-3-14] [REFERRED TO]
MUKESH CHOUDHARY VS. STATE OF U P THR ITS PRIN SECY HOME CIVIL SECTT [LAWS(ALL)-2009-10-290] [REFERRED]
SANDEEP @ SHANKAR VASANT KHALASE VS. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, PUNE CITY, PUNE [LAWS(BOM)-2017-3-302] [REFERRED TO]
RIZWAN PASHA VS. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [LAWS(KAR)-2021-6-51] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

K. G. Balakrishnan, J. - (1.)This appeal is preferred against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in a Habeas Corpus Petition filed by the present appellant challenging the order of the detention passed by the authorities under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as COFEPOSA Act). The detention order was passed on 5-2-1996 and executed on 7-2-1996. The brief facts which are necessary to appreciate the contentions advanced by the appellant are as follows.
(2.)The detenue was born in Thanjavur district in Tamilnadu. He completed his Plus Two education in 1981 and later joined the B.E. Course in an Engineering College and completed the same in 1986. His father was a Government Servant working in a Local Administrative Department at Trichy. During 1988-89, the detenue came to Madras and worked as a Trainee in Madras Builders Office. Later, he entered the field of real estate business and came in the contact with others in that business. A firm was formed in 1991 by name M/s. Emerald Promoters Pvt. Ltd. The detenue married the present appellant in 1992. Apart from M/s. Emerald Promoters Pvt. Ltd., the detenue had an interest in some other financial concerns, as well. The detenue was also the proprietor of M/s. T.C.V. Engineering Pvt. Ltd. in Madras. In 1995, the Enforcement Directorate received certain information that the detenue was engaged in transactions in violation of the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (hereinafter being referred to as "FERA"). Notices were issued to the detenue under Section 40 of the FERA on 12-7-1995, 15-7-1995, 3-8-1995, 17-10-1995 and 25-10-1995. According to the Enforcement Directorate, the detenue evaded all these notices for about four months and ultimately the detenue was examined and his statements were recorded on various dates starting from 1-11-1995 to 31-1-1996. The Enforcement Directorate alleged that a letter dated 4-8-1994 of the Barclays Bank, Sutton, U.K., with a list attached thereto, indicated that 21 cheques involving a total amount of US $ 1,04,93,313 were deposited in the account of M/s. Dipper Investments. Subsequently, some documents were recovered by the Enforcement authorities which revealed that 13 cheques for US $ 62,61,313 favouring M/s. Dipper Investment Ltd., were to be credited in account No. 3001-8937 of the said company in Barclays Bank.
(3.)The detenue was questioned on his trips abroad to varied destinations such as Singapore, Hong Kong, London, etc. He was also questioned regarding his financial connection with Nainish Desai and one Ramachandran and also one Mr. Rajoo of Malaysia about depositing one million Singapore Dollars with the company, by name M/s. Adventure Holding Pvt. Ltd. Singapore, so as to make the detenue the Director of that Company in place of one N.C. Rangesh. From the materials collected by the Enforcement Directorate, the detaining authorities came to the conclusion that an order under Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act is to be passed for preventive detention of the detenue.
;


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