Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. Notice was issued and respondents have entered appearance. Statement of objections is filed by the State. State would say that on the basis of subjective satisfaction, the detaining authority has passed the order of detention with a view to prevent the detenues from acting in any manner prejudicial to the conservation of foreign exchange and smuggling of goods. The detenues were caught while they were smuggling foreign currency out of India. Foreign currency is the one which requires preservation from loss, which means conservation. The word 'augment' connotes to increase or intensify as in size or degree of effect. While one preserves, other intensifies and therefore the object of the conservation and preservation is the same despite the fact that the two expressions are not exactly the same. They justify their action by saying that the detention was necessitated in terms of the Act for conserving foreign exchange. They deny the writ averments made in the case on hand.

4. Learned State Public Prosecutor would say that the authority was convinced in terms of the grounds of detention that the detenues were involved in smuggling of foreign currency out of India in contravention of the various statutes in as much as they carried foreign and Indian currency in excess of the prescribed limit; that they did not obtain the foreign currency from the authorised dealer/money exchanger, apart from carrying the foreign currency in contravention of the statutes; that there were also underlying reasons for smuggling foreign currency to under value the goods to evade customs duty. Learned Counsel invites our attention to para 16 of the grounds of detention to say that it was in those circumstances, the authority considered it necessary to detain the detenues under Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act with a view to prevent them from indulging further in the smuggling of goods.

6. After hearing the learned Counsel, we have carefully perused the material on record.

7. Annexure-A is an order issued by the Principal Secretary, Home department, Government of Karnataka. Before us power under Section 3 of the COFEPOSA Act is conceded. What is argued before us is that the order is passed with a view to prevent the detenues from acting in any manner prejudicial to the conservation of foreign exchange and with a view to preventing them from smuggling goods. Learned Counsel for the petitioners says that augmentation is different from conservation in terms of Section 3 of the Act. We have seen the grounds of detention and from the grounds it is seen that the detenues had in their possession foreign exchange of different denominations. Baggages were checked by the Customs Department in addition to the search of the residential premises of the unauthorised dealer. It is further stated that the detenues had possession of foreign exchange with was neither endorsed in the passport nor declared the same to the Customs and that they had no legitimate documents such acts amount to smuggling. We further see in para 13 of the grounds of detention, the conclusion arrived at by the detaining authority wherein it is stated that the detenues carried foreign exchange and Indian currency in excess of the prescribed limit and he did not obtain the the foreign currency from the authorised dealer/money exchanger. In the subsequent para, the detention authority holds that the detenues were involved in smuggling of foreign currency with an intention to evade customs duty. It was further held that the detention was necessary to prevent the detenues from indulging further in smuggling.