2005 (10) TMI 493

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... appellant herein questions the order of detention dated 3-11-2004 issued by Respondent 2 whereby the father of appellant has been detained in terms of the COFEPOSA. 4. The fact of the matter is as under: On 20-8-2004 the detenu was intercepted by the officers of DRI after he had passed through the customs area to board the flight to Singapore. Foreign currency of USD 81000.00, Euro 7600.00 was seized from him along with 366.00 Singapore dollars which in terms of Indian currency would come to Rs. 40,08,244.50p. The aforementioned amount was seized in terms of the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. The detenu's statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act was recorded wherein he claimed that the seized currency was brought by h....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... by Indian Customs or Police has been booked against you; that no cases are booked against you abroad; that you have travelled to Hong Kong and Singapore only from Mumbai Airport; that whenever you come from Hong Kong and Singapore and if you have foreign currency you declare the same at Customs Counter and obtains Currency Declaration Form (CDF); that when you return back you take the foreign currency and submits the CDF at the Customs Counter and the Customs retain the CDF that you have taken the CDF on 4-5 previous occasions." 7. Keeping in view the nature of the submissions made at the Bar, we have directed the State to produce the records before us. Pursuant to the said direction, the records have been produced. 8. From a perusal....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion but also when the actual order of detention and grounds thereof are prepared. To the aforementioned extent there has been no application of mind on the part of the second respondent herein, and, thus, we are of the opinion that the impugned order of detention dated 3-11-2004 cannot be sustained. 12. The views we have taken derive support from the judgment of this Court in Jai Singh v. State of JandK wherein the Division Bench held: (SCC pp. 561-62, para 1) "We had called for the records and the learned counsel for the State of Jammu and Kashmir has produced the same before us. First taking up the case of Jai Singh, the first of the petitioners before us, a perusal of the grounds of detention shows that it is a verbatim reproductio....