TMI Blog2009 (3) TMI 1035X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ex on 30.1.2008 and found it to be locked and therefore, they have sealed the said premises under a mahazar on the same day. Thereafter, the officials of the DRI were keeping a watch for imports made in the name of M/s.Venkateswara Impex and they have detained a consignment declared as Mong Whole (green gram) vide container Nos.BLPU 2583929, BLPU 066177-7, CAXU 233404-2, BLPU 359173-5 and BLUP 38261-2, vide switch Bill of Lnding No.SBLSINO2145, dated 15.1.2008. It is alleged that according to the documents relating to the said switch bill of lading, the consignor of the goods was M/s.Jayakant J.Shah Co. Pvt. Ltd., 186, High Street, Singapore; that the bill of lading and the manifest indicated the declared cargo as Mong Whole ; that the containers were examined on 8.2.2008 and were found to contain white poly sack bags of Mong whole sacked in front three rows in all the containers and white poly sack bags containing poppy seeds stacked in the remaining rear portion of the container. and in this way, 53 Metric Tons of poppy seeds were concealed, the value of which is estimated at ₹ 1.13 crores and therefore, the sleuths of DRI seized the said 53 MTs of Poppy seeds and 48.4 M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er was available at his residence, the officers of DRI, Chennai visited his residence on 4.5.2008 for serving summons under Section 108 of the Customs Act and having found him there, they have served summons on the petitioner and after enquiry under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, his voluntary statement was recorded and later he was arrested on the same day and was produced before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, E.O.II, Chennai for remand. Thereupon, the impugned order of detention came to be slapped on the petitioner, which is being challenged by him in this habeas corpus petition. 5. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner/detenu would argue that a letter of the Public Prosecutor dated 4.6.2008 and a piece of paper with a civil court stamp on it alone were supplied to the detenu along with a covering letter and the covering letter does not contain the particulars as to for what purpose they were supplied and whether the documents will be placed before the Advisory Board, and therefore, the order of detention is liable to be set aside. 6. Page No.13 of the spiral bind typed set contains the letter addressed by the Secretary to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to him, so as to pave way for him to make an effective representation. In the case on hand, though additional documents have been supplied to the detenu, as has been rightly pointed out by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, nowhere the purpose of such documents being furnished to the detenu has been mentioned, thus creating a state of confusion in the mind of the detenu and impairing his chance of making an effective representation to the authorities. 9. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner/detenu would also rely on an unreported order of a Division Bench of this Court in H.C.P.No.1079 of 2003, dated 26.2.2004 [David Christopher vs. State of Tamil Nadu], wherein also the detention order was assailed on the ground that the detenu was served with additional sets of documents on four different dates with covering letters, but he was not informed as to at whose instance they were served upon him, the purpose of their service and whether the said documents are going to be placed before the Advisory Board as well as before the confirming authority and the detenu having been not furnished with such details, he was prevented from making an effective representatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... doubt that the detenu has no right under Section 8(e) of the COFEPOSA Act to appear through a legal practitioner in the proceedings before the Advisory Board. But, as has been held by the Honourable Apex Court, when a representation has been made by the detenu for legal assistance before the Advisory Board, the same has to be considered with due application of mind. But, the pathetic situation in the case on hand is that such a valid representation of the petitioner/detenu, dated 26.6.2008 was rejected on 14.7.2008, much after the meeting of the Advisory Board on 10.7.2008. Our endeavour to find any scrap of paper to indicate that the said request was duly considered by the Advisory Board has ended in vein. Therefore, the above judgment of the Honourable Apex Court would clearly apply to the facts of the case on hand. 14. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner would further argue that in Para No.vii of the grounds of detention, it has been mentioned that one Kuppan has stated that once in ten days, Thiru Md.Safiullah used to come and unload pulse items, but he did not know anything about Safiullah and that a person by name Maninder Singh (the detenu herein) used to accomp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
