JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)By this petition, the petitioner is challenging the
order of detention dated 21st April, 2005 issued by the
Principal Secretary (Appeals & Security) to the
Government of Maharashtra, Home Department and Detaining
Authority, Mantralaya, Mumbai, against the detenu -
Sameer Chandrakant Pingle under Section 3(1) of the
COFEPOSA Act, and seeks release from detention.
(2.)The brief facts are that on 26.09.2004 the officers
of the Air Intelligence Unit, Sahara Airport, Mumbai,
intercepted the detenu Sameer Chandrakant Pingle who was
proceeding towards the Transit Lounge to board flight
No.SQ 411 to Singapore. The officers after intercepting
the detenu, interrogated him and recovered foreign
currency equivalent to Indian Rs.10,78,562/- and the
indian currency of Rs.14,500/-. According to the
Customs Authorities, the foreign currency was concealed
in the bottom pocket of his half pant. On very next day
viz.27.09.2004 the statement of the detenu was recorded
wherein he had stated that the foreign currency was
purchased by him from one Shri.Vipul who used to visit
detenu s shop in Mumbai, and the detenu had further
stated that he was carrying the amount to settle his
credit with the shop owners in Singapore from whom he
had earlier purchased goods like LCD Projectors, Digital
Cameras etc. Thereafter the detenu was produced before
the holiday Court on 27.9.2004 and was remanded to the
police custody. He was then produced before the regular
Court on 28.9.2004 and was remanded to jail custoday
till 8.10.2004 on which day he was granted bail and on
the same day he had availed the same. Thereafter, on
21.3.2005 a show cause notice was issued to the detenu
under Section 124 of the Customs Act, and thereafter on
21.4.2005 the Detaining Authority had issued Detention
Order under Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act against the
detenu, though they were aware that the detenu was
involved in the above incident and that he was also
granted bail. The said detention order was finally
served on the detenu on 18.01.2007 when he was in a
judicial custody in some other case.
(3.)Mr.Maqsood Khan, the learned Counsel for the detenu
aurgued only one ground though various grounds are
raised in the petition. The only ground raised by the
learned Counsel for the detenu is set out as ground
No.(x), which reads as under:
(x) "The Petitioner says and submits that the detenu
is submitting the Representation to the Detaining
Authority and the State Government, thorugh the Prison
authorities and on Rule-Nisa being issued by this
Honourable Court, it shall be incumbent on the part of
the above two authorities to satisfy this Honourable
Court that the Representations made by the Detenu were
considered by them strictly in accordance with law and
most expeditiously. The Petitioner says and submits
that in the event of the failure on the part of the
above authorities to so satisfy this Honourable Court,
the continued detention of the Detenu be held to be
illegal, null and void."
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.