UOI vs. Paul Manickam 2003 AIR SCW5423 It has been established that in the case of pre-trial detention, no defence is proven, nor an indictment is made and the justification for such detention is suspicion or reasonableness and there is no criminal conviction that can only be justified by legal evidence. Preventive justice requires that measures be taken to prevent stopped offensive activities. But at the same time, a person`s greatest human freedom, that is, personal freedom, is deprived, and therefore the laws of pre-trial detention are interpreted strictly and scrupulously respect the procedural guarantee, however technical it may be. In this case [Union of India v. Ankit Ashok Jalan], the verdict in Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2011) 5 CSC 244, which states that if no bail application is pending, there is no likelihood that the detainee will be released on bail and, therefore, the detention order is illegal. It was argued that the judgment in the Rekha (loc. cit.) case by three judges and the decision in the Dimple Happy Dhakad (loc. cit.) case.
(in which a different point of view was expressed) was adopted by two judges. It was argued that, in any event, in the present case, no application for Bail from Detenus was pending before a court. It is therefore understandable that Article 1(2) states: “This Act shall extend to the whole of India.” It included the term “aliens” in section 2 (c): “Alien has the same meaning as in the Aliens Act 1946” (3 of 1946). But how is it that COFEPOSA does not apply to any of the above-mentioned people, who all come from the same country and have resorted to smuggling goods worth crores of rupees? All of them were caught entering India at regular intervals? Is it because they come from a militarily powerful and economically strong nation that can harm India? The court also noted that the Detainees had been released on bail by the court at the time the arrest warrants were revoked by the High Court. Therefore, the fear in the mind of the detention authority that the Detainees are likely to be released on bail is justified and reinforced, the bank said, repealing the Supreme Court order. The COFEPOSA law allows the government to take similar measures to maintain and increase the country`s currencies. And the government has the right to ensure that the law is enforced by its agencies. A person is remanded in custody by government agencies to prevent him or her from engaging in smuggling operations under the law. Article 3(3) of COFEPOSA, 1974 stipulates that the communication must take place within 5 days and, in exceptional circumstances, within 15 days (after recoding the reasons for the delay).
The reasons must be indicated in writing, but it is not necessary to inform the Detainee of the reasons for the delay. Sophia Gulam Mohd Against the State of Maharashtra (1999 AIR SCW 2985) it was decided that copies of all documents examined by the detention authority should be handed over to the Commissioner. In the case of J Abdul Hakeem v. However, the State of Tamilnadu (2005 7 SCC 70) found that only copies of the documents on which the detention order is based are required. Section 5A of COFEPOSA, 1974; provides that the grounds are separable, i.e. all reasons must be treated separately. Even if the detention order is found to be invalid for any reason, the detention cannot be revoked if it can be maintained for other reasons. It is presumed that the officer issuing the detention order is satisfied that the detention is necessary to save foreign currency or prevent smuggling, and that no proof of his satisfaction is required.
Article 12 (3) of COFEPOSA, 1974; provides that a detained person may be released by the central or state government for a period of time, with or without conditions. A bond may be required of the person who is released. If the released person does not return on the specified date, he can be detained for two years and fined On January 27, 2019, Xia Qianbin was arrested while smuggling memory cards worth Rs 1.07 crore. On April 2, 2019, Yu Shi was caught with memory cards worth Rs 33.29 lakh. April 13, 2019 was the day of the great golden booty by another foreigner from the same country who was worth more than Rs 50 lakh. Law of 1974 on the Conservation of Currency and prevention of the activities of Schmuggling or COFEPOSA, 1974 When Afghan citizen Mohammed Seddiq Yousafi was arrested at Kochi airport on June 13, 2018, while trying to smuggle a huge amount of US dollars and Saudi riel equivalent to crores of rupees, the Indian government rightly placed him under COFEPOSA behind bars for “smuggling” and “state security”. It is for the Advisory Committee to assess whether there was sufficient justification for the detention of the person at the time the detention was ordered and whether there were still sufficient grounds for arresting the person concerned at the time the report is due. The worst thing is that they gain confidence that, despite such brazen actions, the Indian system will not act because of its weakness and corruption. Otherwise, why doesn`t the Indian government impose coFEPOSA on these foreigners for such egregious violations of the law by resorting to smuggling, thereby endangering the security of the state? Will India wake up? India is not a banana republic.
