9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 1269X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ist of the case behind as revealed from the materials produced before us is as under:- i) The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (hereafter referred to as 'DRI' for brevity), Chennai Zonal Unit received a specific intelligence that a gang operating from Vedhalai coastal hamlet of Ramanathapuram District was involved in smuggling of foreign origin gold from Srilanka through Mandapam Coast and that three persons belonging to the said gang were coming in a blue coloured fishing boat named "YAA ALLAH" carrying smuggled gold brought from Srilanka through sea and would be landing in the shore area near Mandapam Fishing Harbour. ii) Acting on the specific intelligence, the DRI Officers, Chennai with the help of the Coast Guard boat intercepted the said boat in sea near Mandapam Fishing Harbour on 08.02.2023 and on enquiry, the three persons introduced themselves as Shri.Nagoor Kani of Mandapam, the owner and driver of the boat, Shri.Mohammed Sameer of Maraikayarpattinam and Shri.Sahubar Sathik of Mandapam. All the three admitted that they had collected smuggled gold from a Srilankan boat at high seas and were returning with the smuggled gold in the fishing boat and on seeing the Coas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also seized under the Mahazar proceedings dated 09.02.2023. The adhesive tapes used as packing materials, with no commercial value, which was liable for confiscation under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 was also seized under the above said Mahazar proceedings. The 167 numbers of seized foreign origin gold items, packing materials and GPS unit were deposited in the Seized Goods Godown, Customs Preventive Unit, Madurai under WHR No.32/2022-23 CPU MDU dated 10.02.2023. The seized boat was deposited at Customs Preventive Unit, Mandapam under WHR No.03/2023-24 dated 09.06.2023. v) All the three were enquired individually on 08.02.2023 and 10.02.2023 and their statements were recorded. Tr.Nagoor Kani being owner of the fishing boat and Mohammed Sameer and Sahubar Sathik being fishermen/coolie claimed to have been engaged by the detenu through some agents for the act of smuggling the gold from Sri Lanka. vi) On the basis of their statements, the agents, by name Jahangeer Abbas and Azaar, who are alleged to have been devised by the detenu to act as agents to involve the fishermen in the smuggling activities, have also been enquired individually on 10.02.2023 and their statemen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and started to chase the persons immediately. The inmates of the boat escaped into the darkness before the Officers could get hold of them. The Officers had chased and nabbed the two persons, who had collected the package from the inmates of the boat and were found trying to run away together with the package. The officers noticed that the two persons caught by them with the package are Shri.Mohamed Sathik Ali, the detenu and Shri.A.Azharudeen, the main accused persons in the smuggling case involving the seizure of 17.740 kgs of foreign origin gold booked by DRI during February 2023. x) The DRI officers noticed that the package carried together by the detenu and Shri.A.Azharudeen was a blue colour adidas brand jacket made into a bundle by knotting together the cuffs of the jacket. When enquired, they admitted that the blue jacket contained packets of smuggled gold. They had also admitted that the detenu had arrived to the sea shore using a Yamaha Ray ZR Street Rally two-wheeler bearing registration No. TN65 AK8476 and had parked it in the vicinity of the shore and after collecting the smuggled gold, they had planned to return back with the smuggled gold using the said two wheele ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om Srilankans. After receiving the smuggled gold, he would contact the mobile numbers shared by a person in Srilanka and deliver the said gold to places like Ramnad and Madurai. Shri.Azharudeen would also assist the detenu in delivering the smuggled gold. Usually, the person to whom the detenu is delivering the said gold would offer him commission money. The detenu had previously smuggled gold into India six times in this way. He would get Rs. 80,000/- as commission in this. He would give a portion of this amount to Shri.Azharudeen and the persons in the boat carrying smuggled Gold. On 09.02.2023, 17740.000 grams of foreign origin gold worth Rs. 10,17,29,540/- along with a fishing boat, which was used to carry the said smuggled gold, GPS kit and packing material used to smuggle was seized by DRI officers at Indian Coast Guard Station, Mandapam, Ramanathapuram - 623 518 and six persons, including the detenu and Shri.Azharudeen were involved in this. The detenu and 5 co-accused had been arrested and are currently on conditional bail. This time, Shri.Mevin had contacted the detenu and said that today i.e. 30.05.2023 he had smuggled gold and asked the detenu to send person to come and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the detention order and grounds of detention were served on 30.9.2023 and thereby the detenu was prevented in making effective representation before the Advisory Board. Further, the reply of the second respondent in this regard was also issued in English on 9.10.2023 and the Tamil version of the same was served on the petitioner much belatedly viz., on 9.11.2023. ii) In the Tamil version of the grounds of detention supplied, the address of the Advisory Board has not been properly mentioned and due to insufficient and improper details, representation dated 20.10.2023 posted on 21.10.2023 to the address indicated therein was returned with the endorsement "no such person" and thereby the right of the detenu to send the representation has been defeated. iii) In the Tamil version of the grounds of detention served on the petitioner, while indicating the right to represent against the detention, there is mentioning of the word to mean the word "representation" and thus the petitioner was misled in taking a decision with regard to the further course of action. iv) In the communication of the sponsoring authority to the Advisory Board on 12.10.2023, there is a mention to the effect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmitted her representation without being misled. v) The representation dated 29.9.2023 was submitted by the petitioner seeking for grounds of detention and since the same does not challenge the detention order, that was not construed as a representation challenging the detention order to be placed before the Advisory Board and thereby, it was not disclosed before the Advisory Board. vi) So far as the allegation of delay in forwarding the representation of the petitioner to the sponsoring authority is concerned, the representation submitted by the petitioner on 20.10.2023 was received only on 10.11.2023, which happens to be a Friday. The 11th and 12th November 2023 are Saturday and Sunday. 13th and 15th November 2023 are Restricted Holidays so far as Delhi is concerned and thereby, the representation was forwarded within a reasonable time and there was no inordinate delay giving room for interference by this court. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 7. A perusal of the records would disclose that though the detention order was passed on 21.9.2023, the detenu was arrested on 27.9.2023 and served with the detent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion also denotes the meaning for the word "representation" as , but, the actual meaning in the present context would only be "KiwaPL". However, this aspect does not assume much significance since the petitioner had submitted her representation without being misled by such a translation. 10. Still, it is relevant note that in the Tamil version of the grounds of detention, another issue exists with regard to defective translation. While mentioning the name and address of the State Advisory Board, which had resulted in return of the representation submitted by the petitioner with the postal endorsement "no such person". 11. In the such circumstances, the allegation made by the Advocate for the of the petitioner in the representation sent through email on 29.9.2023 that the petitioner had been prevented from making an appeal, assumes much significance. Whileso, it may not be proper on the part of the sponsoring authority to make a mention in the communication dated 12.10.2023 made to the Advisory Board to the effect that there is no representation received from the detenu or on his behalf till 12.10.2023. There is also no justification on the part of the respondents to contend that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ars to have been forwarded to the second respondent/sponsoring authority only on 17.11.2023. There is a delay of seven days in forwarding the representation. In this regard, it has been sought to be clarified by the respondents that the representation of the petitioner dated 20.10.2023 was received by the detaining authority only on 10.11.2023, at the fag end of the week on Friday and the succeeding two days viz., 11.11.2023 and 12.11.2023 being closed holidays, 13.11.2023 (Monday) and 15.11.2023 (Wednesday) are declared Restricted Holidays for Delhi resulting in dearth of sufficient staff, however, the representation, which was in Tamil was forwarded to the sponsoring authority after getting the translated for parawise comments and subsequently, it was rejected by the sponsoring authority by order dated 27.12.2023 and thereby there is no inordinate delay on the part of the respondents in considering the representation of the petitioner giving room for interference by this court. 15. Having considered the contentions raised by both sides, this court is of the view that though there there is no hard and fast rule fixing any time limit for considering the representation, there shoul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the State Government to forward his representation to the Central Government. The Court noted that the power which is conferred upon the Central Government to revoke an order of detention under Section 14(1), even if it is made by the State Government, would only have real meaning and content, if the detenu is entitled to make a representation to the Central Government. The failure of the State Government to comply with the request of the detenu for onward transmission of the representation of the Central Government deprives the detenu of a valuable right to have the detention revoked by the Central Government. ......... ....... 47. By delaying its decision on the representation, the State Government deprived the detenu of the valuable right which emanates from the provisions of Section 8(1) of having the representation being considered expeditiously. As we have noted earlier, the communication of the grounds of detention to the detenu "as soon as may be" and the affording to the detenu of the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order of detention to the appropriate Government are intended to ensure that the representation of the detenu is considered by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onal liberty, we cannot allow ourselves to be influenced by these considerations. It has been said that history of liberty is the history of procedural safeguards. The Framers of the Constitution, being aware that preventive detention involves a serious encroachment on the right to personal liberty, took care to incorporate, in clauses (4) and (5) of Article 22, certain minimum safeguards for the protection of persons sought to be preventively detained. These safeguards are required to be "zealously watched and enforced by the Court". Their rigour cannot be modulated on the basis of the nature of the activities of a particular person. We would, in this context, reiterate what was said earlier by this Court while rejecting a similar submission: "Maybe that the detenu is a smuggler whose tribe (and how their numbers increase!) deserves no sympathy since its activities have paralysed the Indian economy. But the laws of preventive detention afford only a modicum of safeguards to persons detained under them and if freedom and liberty are to have any meaning in our democratic set-up, it is essential that at least those safeguards are not denied to the detenus." (See:Rattan Singhv.Sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
