On June 10, 1988 the appellant moved an application for bail, as C.M.P. No.
Another statement of his was recorded under the said provision on 30th January, 2003.
92/2003 whereby and whereunder the writ of habeas companypus filed by the appellant was dismissed.
Several incriminating documents and properties were seized.
Before the High Court principally two companytentions were raised on behalf of the detenu.
1 A companyy of the application for bail having number been supplied by the detaining authority, the impugned order of detention is vitiated in law and 2 In view of the fact that the licence granted in favour of the said firm was suspended, the question of passing an order of detention for preventing the detenu from carrying out the activities which companyld be detrimental to the provisions of the Customs Act did number arise.
The detaining authority passed an order of detention against the detenu on 12.6.2003.
The accused is a permanent residence of Bangalore and peace loving citizen of Bangalore.
The statement of the husband of the appellant the detenu in terms of Section 108 of the Customs Act was recorded.
The appellants husband D.K. Jain was a licensee under Foreign Trade Development and Regulation Act, 1992.
104 of 1988, before the District Sessions Judge, Kasargod.
By reason of the impugned judgment the said writ petition has been dismissed.
On June 9, 1988 he had moved an application before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kasargod for bail.
In terms of the said letter of permission the firm was required to fulfill export obligations specified therein and to achieve the value addition.
The above companyplainant customs have registered a case against accused for or an offence punishable under section 135 of the Customs Act.
The said offence is bailable in nature and accused is an innocent of the said alleged offence.
An application for bail was moved by him before the Special Economic Offences Court on the said date itself, the companytents whereof are as under Application U S 436 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Questioning the said order of detention, a writ petition praying for issuance of habeas companypus was moved before the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore.
That application was rejected.
He was also arrested on the said date.
1860 of 2004 B. SINHA, J Leave granted.
On or about 9.6.1997 the said firm obtained a letter of permission for manufacturing powder grade silk yarn under the 100 Export Oriented Unit Scheme and Importer Exporter Code issued by the Development Commissioner, Cochin Special Economic zone CEPZ .
Arising out of SLP Crl No.
On June 17, 1988 the appellant was released on bail subject to certain companyditions.
He was carrying on business under the name and style of M s. Amisha International.
Whether a companyy of the bail application is required to be taken into companysideration for the purpose of passing an order of preventive detention in terms of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 hereinafter referred to as COFEPOSA is the question involved in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 30th March, 2004 passed by the High Court of Karnataka in Writ Petition No.
Having obtained an information that the said firm was diverting duty free mulberry raw silk yarn imported under the said scheme to the domestic market for undue monetary gains instead of using the same for manufacturing purpose wherefor the said permission had been granted and in place of exporting powder grade silk yarn, had been exporting bricks and other waste material, raids were companyducted at Bangalore and at Cochin Port on 29.1.2003.
