GIMIKPIOTR v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU & Anr.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Bail granted
and material mentioned above, if you are released on bail,
Provisions considered
- Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 s. 3(1)(i)
- Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act s. 3(1)(i)
- Customs Act, 1962
- Constitution of India
- Maintenance of Internal Security Act
- Terrorism and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act
- National Security Act, 1980
- Maintenance of Essential Commodities Act, 1980
Judgment
the State, submitted that the mere retention 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 D Court accepted this as a satisfactory answer to justify the passing of a preventive detention order. If that be the position, the order of preventive detention could have been passed u/s~ 3(1) (ii) of COFEPOSA, as it authorizes the State Government to pass a preventive detention order to preventing him from abetting smuggling of goods. The argument advanced by the respondents is devoid of any logic. In the instant case, the detention order is passed u/ s. 3(1)(i) of COFEPOSA. The customs department has retained the passport of the detenu. The likelihood of the app~llant indulging in smuggling activities was effectively foreclosed. [Paras 26 and 27] (903-G-H; 904-A-C-E] E F Ibrahim Shareef M. Madhafushi vs. Union of India and Ors. (1992) 1 SCC 1, referred to. Sitthi Zuraina Begum-vs-: Union of/ndia and Ors. (2002) G 10 SCC 448, Distinguished . .. -·1:4. There was no pressing need to curtail the liberty of a person by passing a preventive detention order. Foreign currency cannot be smuggled as person cannot move out of the country on account of his passport being H ) 892 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. impounded. Merely because a person cannot otherwise survive in the country, is no basis to conclude that a person will again resort to smuggling activities, or abetting such activities by staying in the country. There is higher standard of proof required in these circumstances involving the life and liberty of a person. The material provided by the respondents is not enough to justify the curtailment of the liberty of the appellant under an order of preventive detention, in the fact and circumstances of the case. Thus, reasons are recorded for directing the release of the detenu. [Paras 30 and 31] (905-C-G] A 8 c Attorney General for India & Ors. vs. Amratlal Prajivandas & Ors. 1994 (5) SCC 54; Chowdarapu Raghunandan vs. State of Tamil Nadu 2002 (3) SCC 754; KundanBhai Dhulabhai Shaikh Etc. vs. District Magistrate, Ahmedabad & Ors. 1996 (3) SCC 194; Mahesh Kumar Chauhan@ Banti vs. ·union of o.- lndai 1990 (3) SCC 148; Prabhu Dayal Deorah vs. Distt. Magistrate 1974 (1) SCC 103; Rajesh Gu/ti vs. Government of Delhi and anr., referred to. E F G Case Law Reference :
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: and material mentioned above, if you are released on bail,
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 — s. 3(1)(i); Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act — s. 3(1)(i); Customs Act, 1962; Constitution of India; Maintenance of Internal Security Act; Terrorism and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.