REKHA UMESH SHETTY Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
LAWS(BOM)-2007-7-44
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on
July 17,2007
REKHA UMESH SHETTY
Appellant
VERSUS
SUPERINTENDENT OF PRISON
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
PREM PRAKASH V. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]D. ANURADHA V. JOINT SECRETARY AND ANOTHER [REFERRED TO]
RAMESHWAR SHAW VS. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE BURDWAN [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. CHAMANLAL MANJIBHAI SONI [REFERRED TO]
HARISH PAHWA VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
PRAKASH CHANDRA MEHTA VS. COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KERALA [REFERRED TO]
K SATYANARAYAN SUBUDHI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
K T M S MOHD AMANULLAH QUARESHI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR INDIA VS. AMRATLAL PRAJIVANDAS [REFERRED TO]
MEENA JAYENDRA THAKUR VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
AHAMED NASSAR VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
A SOWKATH ALI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH GULATI VS. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI [REFERRED TO]
KIRTI KUMAR NIRULA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
T V SARAVANAN ALIAS S A R PRASANA VENKATACHAARIAR CHATURVEDI VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
A GEETHA VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
R. P. Desai, J. -
(1.)The petitioner is the wife of one Umesh Shetty
("detenu" for convenience), who has been detained
by the 2nd respondent, Principal Secretary (Appeals
and Security), Government of Maharashtra, under the
provisions of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange
and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974
("COFEPOSA Act" for short), with a view to
preventing him in future from smuggling goods. In
this petition, the petitioner has challenged the
said order of detention.
(2.)The order of detention was served on the detenu when he was in judicial custody. The grounds of detention indicate that the material placed before the detaining authority disclosed that two consignments imported by the detenu were seized by the DRI Officers on 21/2/06. The relevant bills of entry showed the goods contained in the consignments as plastic parts of toys. However, they contained 4 lakh pieces of Analog Watch Movements valued at Rs.68 lakhs. It was apparent, therefore, that the goods were misdeclared.
(3.)On the basis of the material placed before her the detaining authority was satisfied that the detenu had engaged in prejudicial activities and she was satisfied that unless detained he was likely to continue to engage in similar prejudicial activities in future also after his release from custody. In the circumstances she issued the impugned detention order with a view to preventing the detenu in future from smuggling goods.
(2.)The order of detention was served on the detenu when he was in judicial custody. The grounds of detention indicate that the material placed before the detaining authority disclosed that two consignments imported by the detenu were seized by the DRI Officers on 21/2/06. The relevant bills of entry showed the goods contained in the consignments as plastic parts of toys. However, they contained 4 lakh pieces of Analog Watch Movements valued at Rs.68 lakhs. It was apparent, therefore, that the goods were misdeclared.
(3.)On the basis of the material placed before her the detaining authority was satisfied that the detenu had engaged in prejudicial activities and she was satisfied that unless detained he was likely to continue to engage in similar prejudicial activities in future also after his release from custody. In the circumstances she issued the impugned detention order with a view to preventing the detenu in future from smuggling goods.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.