Felix C.Okochi Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 408 of 2002
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 252 of 2002
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 252 of 2002
Petitioner: Felix C.Okochi
Respondent: The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 408 of 2002
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 252 of 2002
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 252 of 2002
Judges: M.B. SHAH & D.M. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Mar 21, 2002
Appearances:
Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain, Mr. A.P. Dhamija and Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Advocates for the Appellant.
Mr. T.L. Viswanatha Iyer, Senior Advocate, Mr. T.G. Narayanan Nair and Mr. Ramesh Singh, Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, Advocates with him for the Respondents.
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
COFEPOSA Act, 1974
Detention order – Legality – Nigerian student found in possession of foreign exchange – Sponsoring authority in possession of bank pass book showing the currency having come from proper channel – Same not produced before detaining authority. Held that order of detention was vitiated. (Para 7)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. Leave granted.
3. The appellant has challenged the impugned order dated 19th December, 2001 passed by the High Court of judicature at Madras in HCP No. 1073 of 2001. By the impugned order, the High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the detention order dated 30th April, 2001 passed under section 3 (1) (i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).
4. At the time of hearing of this matter, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that apart from the fact that the appellant, who is a foreign national, is detained on so-called single violation of foreign exchange regulation, the detention order is vitiated because sponsoring authority has not placed before the detaining authority the important documents which contained the details about the legal source of acquisition of foreign exchange. The said documents have come into existence much before the order of detention and, therefore, the detention order is vitiated. It has been pointed out that the appellant has received the amount of foreign exchange through bank accounts and the said bank accounts were forwarded to the sponsoring authority by letter dated 23.4.2001. Copy of the said letter and documents are produced on record of this appeal as annexure P5.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents was not in position to dispute the aforesaid facts.
6. In the present case, it is alleged that the appellant is a holder of Nigerian passport and a student at Chennai. When he was leaving, from his possession foreign currencies equivalent to Rs. 10,28,540/- was found. On next day i.e. on 20.3.2001, he was arrested and his statement was recorded. Subsequent to the notice, the appellant has produced the documents revealing that the foreign exchange amount was received by him through proper channel and that too it is reflected in the bank accounts. It is submitted that copy of the bank account was sent to the sponsoring authorities, still however, without placing the said documents before the detaining authority the aforesaid detention order is obtained.
7. Considering the facts stated above, in our view, the aforesaid detention order cannot be sustained as important material documents revealing the source of the foreign exchange were before the sponsoring authority and yet the same was not produced before the detaining authority. Hence, the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is vitiated.
8. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order passed by the High Court and the detention order dated 30.4.2001 passed by the detaining authority are quashed and set aside. The detenue be released forthwith, if he is not required in connection with any other case.
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. Leave granted.
3. The appellant has challenged the impugned order dated 19th December, 2001 passed by the High Court of judicature at Madras in HCP No. 1073 of 2001. By the impugned order, the High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the detention order dated 30th April, 2001 passed under section 3 (1) (i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).
4. At the time of hearing of this matter, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that apart from the fact that the appellant, who is a foreign national, is detained on so-called single violation of foreign exchange regulation, the detention order is vitiated because sponsoring authority has not placed before the detaining authority the important documents which contained the details about the legal source of acquisition of foreign exchange. The said documents have come into existence much before the order of detention and, therefore, the detention order is vitiated. It has been pointed out that the appellant has received the amount of foreign exchange through bank accounts and the said bank accounts were forwarded to the sponsoring authority by letter dated 23.4.2001. Copy of the said letter and documents are produced on record of this appeal as annexure P5.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents was not in position to dispute the aforesaid facts.
6. In the present case, it is alleged that the appellant is a holder of Nigerian passport and a student at Chennai. When he was leaving, from his possession foreign currencies equivalent to Rs. 10,28,540/- was found. On next day i.e. on 20.3.2001, he was arrested and his statement was recorded. Subsequent to the notice, the appellant has produced the documents revealing that the foreign exchange amount was received by him through proper channel and that too it is reflected in the bank accounts. It is submitted that copy of the bank account was sent to the sponsoring authorities, still however, without placing the said documents before the detaining authority the aforesaid detention order is obtained.
7. Considering the facts stated above, in our view, the aforesaid detention order cannot be sustained as important material documents revealing the source of the foreign exchange were before the sponsoring authority and yet the same was not produced before the detaining authority. Hence, the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is vitiated.
8. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order passed by the High Court and the detention order dated 30.4.2001 passed by the detaining authority are quashed and set aside. The detenue be released forthwith, if he is not required in connection with any other case.
