AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 1490
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....We have heard Shri. Hashmath Pasha, learned Senior Counsel as instructed by Shri Kariappa N.A. learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Shri. Kuloor Arvind Kamath, learned Additional Solicitor General of India along with Shri. Shanthi Bhushan H, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2 and Shri. Thejesh P, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondent No.3. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- Smt. Harshavardhini Ranya, was intercepted on 03.03.2025 at the Green Channel at Kempegowda International Airport, Bengaluru, while attempting to exit without declaration. A personal search revealed 17 foreign-marked gold bars weighing approximately 14,200.53 grams concealed on her person. Smt. Harshavardhini Ranya was arrested on 04.03.2025. Her voluntary statements were also recorded. Further, voluntary statements recorded reveals that she was a Director in five firms including 'Vira Diamonds Trading LLC, Dubai'. Her phone, laptop and other electronic devices were also voluntarily surrendered and subjected to examination. Customs declaration dated 06.03.2025 and 25.03.2025 in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 8. The detenue appeared before the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence ("DRI" for short) pursuant to summons on 09.03.2025 and was arrested and remanded to DRI custody until 14.03.2025. The detenue's bail application before the Special Court for Economic Offences was dismissed on 19.03.2025 and a subsequent application before the City Civil and Sessions Court in Crl.Misc.No.2598/2025 was rejected on 07.04.2025. His further challenge in Crl.P.No.5432/2025 before the this Court was dismissed on 26.04.2025. Subsequently, by letter dated 18.06.2025, the Central Government transmitted the detenue's representation to the Advisory Board. Even after receipt of the Advisory Board's opinion dated 02.07.2025, the Central Government issued a Confirmatory Order on 16.07.2025. After hearing on 16.07.2025, the Advisory Board rejected the representation by order dated 16.07.2025. 9. Since the investigation was not completed within the statutorily prescribed period, the detenue filed an application under Section 187(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023 which was allowed on 20.05.2025 subject to stringent conditions. Due to the subsistence of the detention order dated 22.04.202....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntation to the detaining authority. The representation is said to have been placed before the Advisory Board by the detaining authority. It is contended that respondent No. 1/detaining authority has not considered the said representation before forwarding it to the Advisory Board. 16. It is further contended that the Advisory Board has not called the detenue to give him a fair and reasonable opportunity of personal hearing regarding the detention order and to explain his non-involvement in the alleged offence, which is in violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. It is further contended that though the detaining authority states that the representation preferred by the detenue was placed before the Advisory Board, the said representation is not adverted to and no order was passed on the said representation either by the detaining authority or the Advisory Board. 17. It is further contended that the detenue has not carried and brought any gold or dutiable goods to India at any time and he had no knowledge about the possession, carriage and concealment of the seized gold bars on the person of Smt. Harshavardini Ranya. It is contended that even if she had carried ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8.2. In reaching such requisite satisfaction, the detaining authority has applied its mind to all relevant circumstances and the same is not based on material extraneous to the scope and purpose of the statute; 28.3. Power has been exercised for achieving the purpose for which it has been conferred, or exercised for an improper purpose, not authorised by the statute, and is therefore ultra vires; 28.4. The detaining authority has acted independently or under the dictation of another body; 28.5. The detaining authority, by reason of self-created rules of policy or in any other manner not authorised by the governing statute, has disabled itself from applying its mind to the facts of each individual case; 28.6. The satisfaction of the detaining authority rests on materials which are of rationally probative value, and the detaining authority has given due regard to the matters as per the statutory mandate; 28.7. The satisfaction has been arrived at bearing in mind existence of a live and proximate link between the past conduct of a person and the imperative need to detain him or is based on material which is stale; 28.8. The ground(....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and and Others, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 502; * Jaseela Shaji v. Union of India and Others, reported in (2024) 9 SCC 53; * Pramod Singla v. Union of India and Others, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 374; * Joyi Kitty Joseph v. Union of India and Others, reported in (2025) 4 SCC 476; * Ankit Ashok Jalan v. Union of India and Others, reported in (2020) 16 SCC 127; * Mr. Keneeth Jideofor v. Union of India, Ministry of Finance and Revenue and Others, reported in ILR 2020 KAR 2127; * Kamleshkumar Ishwardas Patel v. Union of India and Others, reported in (1995) 4 SCC 51; * Shabna Abdulla v. Union of India reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2057; and Others, * Harikisan v. State of Maharashtra reported in 1962 SCC OnLine SC 117; and Others, * Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana reported in (2025) 5 SCC 799; and Others, * Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2024) 8 SCC 254; * Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India and Others, reported in (2024) 7 SCC 576; * Rajesh Gulati v. Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi and Another, reported in 2002 4 Crimes (SC) 86; * Gimik Piotr v. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....han ornaments is prohibited as per Item 5 of Annexure I. Gold bars and biscuits are therefore prohibited goods. The deliberate and repeated import of gold bars and biscuits by the detenues falls squarely within this prohibition. Section 135 of the Customs Act prescribes punishment for evasion of duty and related offences. It forms part of the statutory framework that marks clandestine import activities as serious offences, thereby reinforcing the preventive purpose of COFEPOSA Act. Section 3(1) of COFEPOSA Act extends to preventive detention not only to persons who directly smuggle goods, but also to those who abet, transport, conceal, keep, deal with, or harbor persons engaged in smuggling. On the ground of non-supply of the pen drive in Sl.No.51 of the relied upon documents, the learned ASGI submitted that contents of the pen drive were shown to the detenue on a laptop on 27.04.2025 and the detenue has given an acknowledgement to that effect. 26. The learned ASGI appearing for the respondents contended that the detention order is legal and justified, having been passed after due consideration of the materials placed by the sponsoring authority. It is contended that the deta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rd through the jail authorities. The representations were considered within a statutory time. 32. It is also contended that a legal distinction between punitive custody in a criminal prosecution and preventive detention under COFEPOSA Act must be made. Even if the detenue is in judicial custody or bail has been considered, preventive detention may still be required to prevent future smuggling activities. The sponsoring authority and the detaining authority are said to have followed all constitutional, statutory, and procedural safeguards, and the respondents deny all contentions of non-application of mind, non-supply of relied upon documents, or procedural lapses. 33. The learned ASGI appearing for the respondents places reliance on the following judgements: * Naresh Kumar Goyal v. Union of India, reported in (2005) 8 SCC 276; and * State of Maharashtra and Ors v. Bhaurao Punjabrao Gawande, reported in (2008) 3 SCC 613. 34. Having considered the contentions advanced, we notice that the main contention raised by the writ petitioner is that the detenue's involvement in the repeated instances of smuggling are not even spoken of in the detention order and tha....