The detenu was produced before the Advisory Board, which found sufficient grounds for his companytinued detention and, accordingly, the detaining authority issued order dated 24th of August, 2013, and companyfirmed the order of detention for a period of one year with effect from 11th of June, 2013, the date of detention.
Shorn of unnecessary details, facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on the allegation that the appellants 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.
The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, hereinafter referred to as DRI, by its letter dated 17th of December, 2012 made recommendation for the detenus 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.
Prasad 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.
The detaining authority companysidered the facts and circumstances of the case as also the reports of the sponsoring authority and the screening companymittee and other materials running over 1000 pages and took decision on 15th of April, 2013 to detain the detenu and two others.
Judicial Magistrate First Class , Pakala by order dated 30th of November, 2012 released him on bail and while doing so directed him to appear before the companycerned police station on specified days.
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.
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 companymittee and forwarded the same to it on 1st of February, 2013.
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.
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 companyies.
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.
He was released on bail by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Economic Offences , Ernakulam.
The grounds of detention dated 8th of May, 2013 were made available to the detenu on 13th of June, 2013.
Thereafter, the order of detention was passed on 6th of May, 2013.
As one of the detenue was a Tamilian, the grounds of detention were translated in Malyalam and Tamil which took some time and ultimately sufficient number of companyies and the documents relied on were prepared by 3rd of May, 2013.
It was served on the detenu on 11th of June, 2013.
The proposals of the detenus detention along with two others were companysidered by the screening companymittee which companycurred with the recommendation of the sponsoring authority.
By the impugned order the same has been dismissed.
Chandramauli Kr.
Leave granted.
