In that case the alleged incidents were on April 2/3/9, 1988.
The detention order was passed on April 15, 1988 and the detenu was arrested on October 2, 1988.
If in the in stant case the bail order on companydition of the detenus reporting to the Customs authorities was number companysidered the detention order itself would have been affected.
On 2 8 1988 the Superintendent of Police, Malapuram sent a wireless message to the Home Secretary stating that the detention order had been served on the detenu on 2 8 1988 at his residence and his acknowledgement obtained and he had been sent to the Central Prison, Trivandrum.
C.P. in the High Court of Delhi and the same having been dismissed in limine the appellant appeals therefrom by special leave.
49 of 1990.
25 of 1989.
It stated that the Government of Kerala was satisfied with respect to the appellant that with a view to preventing him from smuggling gold it was necessary to detain him and, therefore, in exercise of powers companyferred by section 3 1 i of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Preven tion of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 Central Act 52 of 1974 , hereinafter referred to as the COFEPOSA Act, the Government of Kerala directed that he be detained and kept in custody in the Central Prison, Trivandrum.
The impugned detention order dated 25 6 1988 was passed by the Home Secretary, Government of Kerala.
Rekhaben Virendra Kapadia v. State of Gujarat Ors.,
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.2.1989 of Delhi High Court in Crl.
The Court also referred to Gora v. State of West Bengal, 1975 2 SCR 996 Raj Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar, 1986 4 SCC 407 and Smt.
On 12 2 1988 he was granted bail on companydi tion, inter alia, that he would report before the Superintendent Intelligence Air Customs, Trivandrum on every Wednesday until further orders, and that he would number change his residence without prior permission of Court to 25 2 1988.
W. No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by N. SAIKIA, J. Special leave granted.
228D E Smt.
After the Appellant landed at Trivandrum Airport from Abu Dhabi, he was intercepted by the customs officials detecting that he smuggled 13 gold sheets weighing 1280 gms.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
Madhu Khanna v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, 1986 4 SCC 240, referred to.
The grounds of detention, which were also served, inter alia, gave the details as to how the smuggled gold was detected in his possession having been smuggled into India in violation of the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 and Import and Export Control Act, 1947 what were his statements at the time of seizure of his blue suitcase, his new and old passports and the air ticket used for the journey from Dubai to Trivandrum and the return open air ticket from Bombay to Abu Dhabi and the gist of his statements given on 30/31 1988 under section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 before the Intelligence Superintendent, Air Customs, Trivandrum.
He was arrested on 31 1 1988 and was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Economic Offences Ernakulam who remanded him to judicial custody till 12 2 1988.
valued at Rs.4,26,240 companycealed inside the plywood panels of his blue suitcase which was seized along with his two pass ports, old and new.
C. Mahajan, Ms. Sushma Suri, P. Parmeshwaran, A.K. Srivastava and T.T. Kunhikannan for the Respondents.
On 23 8 1988 the appropriate authority declared that he was satisfied that the detenu was likely to smuggle goods into and through Trivandrum Airport which was an area highly vulnerable to smuggling as defined in Explanation 1 to section 9 1 of the COFEPOSA Act.
It was also stated that after his arrest on 31 1 1988 he was pro duced before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Economic Offences Ernakulam on the same date and he was remanded to judicial custody and was subsequently released on bail and that even though the departmental adjudication and prosecution proceedings under Customs Act were pending against him, the detaining authority was satisfied that he should be detained under section 3 1 i of the COFEPOSA Act with a view to prevent him from smuggling gold to Trivan drum.
R. Setia, C.S. Vaidyanathan and K.V. Viswanathan for the Appellant.
1979 2 SCC 566 Smt.
On 24th September, 1988, the detenu appeared before the Advisory Board which reported that there was sufficient cause for his detention.
II to the Special Leave Petition.
