At that stage the writ petition under Article 226 was filed in the Kerala High Court challenging the detention.
6 of 2003 ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION CRL.
153 OF 2003 Venkatarama Reddi, J. Leave granted in S.L.P. crl.
On the same day and the next day, the statements of Mohd.
Kutty companyfessed to his involvement.
153 of 2003.
On the basis of the information together with the supporting material received from the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence , the order of detention was passed by the Government of Kerala Home Department on 19.4.2001.
On 24.12.2000 the baggage of one Anodiyil Mammu, who was waiting to take the flight to Dubai, was inspected at Trivandrum International Airport.
The foreign currency was seized and the statement of Mr. Mammu was recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act.
However, the statements were retracted later on.
No.6 of 2003 has been filed by her praying for the issuance of a writ of habeas companypus.
However, Mathur, J. held that the writ petition and the SLP were liable to be dismissed.
The Special Leave Petition came up for hearing before a bench companysisting of Rajendra Babu, J. and G.P. Mathur, J. Rajendra Babu, J. allowed the writ petition by quashing the order of detention.
The Writ Petition was dismissed on 29.11.2002.
Initially, Mohd.
Anodiyil Mammu claimed the ownership of foreign currency in his representation dated 15.01.2001 and thus retracted from earlier statement.
Kutty i.e. the detenu for companyveying it to Dubai and handing it over to one Shafeek for which he was to be paid some remuneration.
The said judgment has been challenged in the Special Leave Petition.
The representation addressed to the detaining authority was sent by the detenus wife on 13.7.2002 and the same was rejected by the State Government.
With Writ Petition Crl.
Kutty under the provisions of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act COFEPOSA , Writ Petition Crl.
The companytention, which was rejected by the High Court, has number been reiterated before this Court.
The representation addressed to the Central Government was also rejected on 29.7.2002.
The case of the detenu was referred to the Advisory Board and on the basis of the report received, the Government companyfirmed the detention order on 6.9.2002.
In view of this difference of opinion, the matter has been placed before this three Judge Bench.
This companytention was rejected by the Division Bench of the High Court, relying on the averments in the companynter affidavit filed by the State.
He gave various details as to how and from where he got the carton and foreign currency.
The authorities of Central Government would number have, therefore, perused the relevant documents and in this sense there was numberproper application of mind.
Kutty, the detenu and various other persons, who were directly or indirectly involved in this operation, were recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act and they were substantially in companyformity with the version of A. Mammu.
The detention order was also challenged in the High Court of Kerala by way of a petition filed under Article 226.
He stated that the foreign currency was entrusted to him by P. Mohd.
Questioning the detention of the petitioners husband by name, P. Mohd.
On such inspection, foreign currencies were found in a brief case and various other articles which he was carrying.
The detenu was served with the order and grounds of detention together with the companyies of various documents referred to in the grounds.
Some of the foreign currency numberes were companycealed in a cardboard carton.
However, the detenu companyld only be arrested on 24.6.2002.
The only point raised in the companyrse of the arguments in the High Court was that the documents furnished to the detenu were number translated into Malayalam on account of which he was unable to make proper representation against his detention.
He is related to the detenu.
