Moulana Shamshunnisa vs Additional Chief Secretary on 26 May, 2010

[Cites 0, Cited by 4]

Karnataka High Court

Moulana Shamshunnisa vs Additional Chief Secretary on 26 May, 2010

Bench: K.L.Manjunath

1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE gem DAY OF' MAY, 2010 
PRESENT 

THE I-10N*BLE MRJUSTICE K.L.MANJUI§'=:é:$TIE§V.: "nu  - ' 

THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE  

wnrr rmxrxou no.6812é1 btHc;% %A-e . 2 ' L

Motliana Shamsh1iImisé1..V_  *  
W/o Mauiana Fakazdi Ahdui'-Kajdiréﬁiisha,»
Muslim Keri (Usnzania Mohailéxi  _--   V  "
Shiruru, Kundapur, Uc:1upi~576'2'2*e8 '_ AV .
         . fPE'I'I'I'IONER

(By Sﬁzvﬁejeﬁiﬁgye Am
AND:     1 1

1. Adeatignai' 

. ., ' Home Department,

'   Secretariat,

 % 'Jidéhan;avV'VSo}ud'ha, Bangalore

2  _ 2. The 

Govem_ment of India,

 .. Mmisay of Finance,
 _Department of Revenue,
 63¢'-'e'i1ovor, B~--Wi:ng, Janpath,

New Delhi, Through the oiﬁce at"
" Union of India, Bangalore.

V A. 3. The Superintendent of Customs,

Head Quarter Preventive Unit,
Bangalore.

'K/.



Ahmed at the Bangalore International Air Port, heﬁzszas

found in possession of 4.35 kgs. of Gold .. V

same was seized under a Mahazar. The  it 

petitioner was arrested and he  

Special Court; of Economic Offences 16/ Q' 

10. The son of the petitionei*i'e»i:dioved  'as  téhieh

was rejected by   foe'Economic'

Offences. Against  iviaifapiication for
grant of bad,"  the City
Civil    i Bangaiore in
 granted the bail
on 5.   petitioner was detained on

24.  10 at    the Authorities. Later on he

  it   before the Advisory Board constituted

  of the Act. The Advisory Board

V .V    opportunity to the petit:ioner's son found

 i order of detention is valid and the order of

-i  detention has been confirmed. He has been ordered to

"  detained in the Cenwal Prison for a period of one

year from the date of detention.
33/



4

3. Being aggieved by the action of the

respondents, the present petition is ﬁled

petitioner.

4. We have heard the j;

petitioner, the learned " for the L, respondents»: and 4 aridvuu' 'Solicitor General for responden._ts}- a¥r1de_ " ~._ _' » . " ' ~ \ _

5. The counsel for the That did not send a report Within 11 weeks fmm order of detention as required section oftfie Act. Therefore, the petitioner's setwat ii'r)erty forth with as there is a of the Advisory Board in not sending thereportv the stipulated time as required under , .. t.'13__1a1ir's. He alternatively contends that in View of the of the pass-port by the respondents, the "apprehension of the respondents that the petitioner's son would continue the alleged smuggling activities cannot be accepted as the petitioner's son cannot ieave efs'3/ the jurisdiction of India in the absence of his _pass~port. The apprehension of the respondent is petit1'oner's son is not detained, he would cormrgeei snmggling activities. According to --.. the order of detention are inshfﬁcient and cannot accepted. Therefore, on these the' , court to allow the petition.

6. Per contra, for the respondents con.tefi(i:w. has been submitted ebfzif ' emit 5.4.20 10. Since the xietained at about 7 am. on

24. 1.2010, mecgtﬁeaea by the Advisory Board 'be 11 weeks and therefore they » coz1tent1«.ﬁ"1at--.t11ere is no contravention of section 8(c) of H .:'I'i?.:e$/ further contend that considering the reasozniVng.sx.VassigI1ed by the Additional Secretary to the » Home Vfﬂepaxtment, there are several chances of the 1}etitioner's son continuing his smuggling activities even if the passport has been seized by the authorities. According to them, the petitioner's son can indulge in the smuggling activities even without visiting the Dubai 8/ 6 or any other country and that he would continue his activities aiter he is reieased by this Court. Therefore',..v they request the Court to dismiss the petition.__A= 'A

7. Having heard the counsel have to consider whether the Board. it the report within 1 1 weeks idiﬁecﬁon 8((:) of the Act and whether_ petit:ion'«to be anew: by quashing the order of V

8. So .COI1C6I'11€d, we have perused Mthe' ori5giiLa'i":records are produced by the before us. On perusal of the ijeeordsf isthat the petitioner's son was 1'U"'st 7,00 a,1n._ The Advisory Board Vreiport to the Government on 5.4.2010. If we period from 24.1.2010 to 5.4.2010, the been sent by the Advisory Board welt within

-1V_Vi-».'«2's.?ee1-rs. Therefore, we cannot hold that there is wvioiation of section 8(0) of the Act. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered against the petitioner. 65/

9. So far as second point is concerned, it is no doubt true that the pass-port of the petitioner's _ been seized and it is also true that he i. abroad in the absence of the pass--port.._ It is the petitioner that since the Sessions has 7-] the hail, the order of detention has" to Such an argument cannot be any.

Even if the petitioners 'base? hail, the Court has a dxﬁerent of the respondents is that if ofiiitiieteiition istgneshed on the gound that the petit1oner._"s._ enlarged on baii, he continuing activities cannot be ruled out. 'w1;e12=is"ai1egeti""toV be an habitual oﬁender, even if seized, without visiting the foreigi _ connfo'ie_$' ' can continue his snuggling activities " _conosider§.--1§g his conduct with his business partners in Therefore, we cannot appreciate the contention

-urged by the iearned counsel for the petitioner. U Therefore, the said ground has to be rejected. 2/ H}. In the result, we do not me any merits in petition.

21. Accordingly, the petition is dismissﬁ:.ff A If .

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court