TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (10) TMI 994
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hority in exercise of powers under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act1974 (hereinafter referred to as the COFEPOSA Act"). 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has made detailed submissions on various grounds urged in the Petition. The learned Counsel has pressed into service grounds Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 set out in the petition. The learned Counsel has also pressed into service the grounds Nos. 6 and 7 of the Petition. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out that the order of detention has been passed in exercise of powers under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the COFEPOSA Act. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 5. The learned APP appearing for the respondents did not dispute the correctness of the fact that the passport was voluntarily surrendered by the petitioner. The learned APP invited our attention to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Abdul Sathar Ibrahim Manik vs. Union of India & Ors.(1992) 1 SCC 1. The learned APP submitted that merely because passport was in the custody of Customs Department, that by itself cannot be the basis of judicial review of the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority. The learned APP therefore submitted that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, this is no ground to exercise writ jurisdiction for setting aside the order of detention. 6. Before dealing with other....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ention of the passport of the detenu will not be enough as the preventive detention order has been passed so as to prevent him from abetting the smuggling of goods by staying in the country. This was argued before the High Court. The High Court accepted this as a satisfactory answer to justify the passing of a preventive detention order. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of Respondents 1 and 3 in Para 3 it is stated : "It is accepted by the detenu himself in the representation that he cannot even survive in India. Therefore for the survival, till he goes out of this country, there is all likelihood for him to indulge in such activities indirectly and illegally without the passport and can also abet in such activities. Hence,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the order of detention passed by the detaining authority. This Court did not go into the issue as to whether the impounding of the passport of the detenu was enough to curb the potentiality of smuggling and to render the order of preventive detention unjustified. 34. The other case on which reliance was placed by the learned counsel appearing for the State was Sitthi Zuraina Begum v. Union of India. In our view, the findings and conclusions reached in that case would not assist contention of the respondents, as the Court held in that case that the impounding of the passport of the detenu effectively foreclosed the chances of the detenu engaging in smuggling activities in the future." (underlines added). 9. In the case of Mohammed ....