1999 (2) TMI 669

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ceedings to the aircraft at Chennai airport, foreign currency equivalent to ₹ 57,21,401/- was seized from his baggage. The State of Tamil Nadu, with a view to prevent him from indulging in smuggling activities in future, ordered his detention vide order No. SR-8/97 dated 16.6.97 passed under Section 3(1)(i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short 'COFEPOSA ACT'). The said order was served on him on 23.6.97 and he was arrested on the same day. 5. The first respondent challenged the validity of the said order in the High Court of Madras in the petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Various grounds were urged before the High Court to assail the s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on 14.7.97. From the order under appeal, it is seen that the following documents were furnished to the detenu: (i) Anticipatory bail application of co-accused, Abdul Hakim filed on June 27, 1997; (ii) Counter affidavit of the Customs department dated June 30, 1997 filed in the High Court in the Crl.O.A. filed by Abdul Hakim; (iii) Application filed by the detenu before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, as further development documents. In view of the categorical statement made by the Government Pleader before the High Court which is recorded in the judgment under appeal, referred to above, and in view of the fact that those documents came into being in June 1997 before the meeting of the Advisory Board, we are not inclined....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....justice, de hors Article 22(5) of the Constitution in this case as the grievance of the first respondent can be dealt with under provision. 11. The principle laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court is State of Bombay v. Atma Ram is that while "additional grounds" cannot be given after the grounds are furnished in the first instance, but particulars of the facts mentioned or indicated in the grounds already conveyed stand on a different footing and that they are not now new grounds within the meaning of Article 22(5). It was observed : Thus, while the first mentioned type of additional grounds cannot be given after the grounds are furnished in the first instance, the other types even if furnished after the grounds are f....