http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  340 of 2008

PETITIONER: Principal Secretary to Govt. of A.P.& Anr

RESPONDENT: N.Fairoz Khan & Another

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19/02/2008

BENCH: ASHOK BHAN & J.M.PANCHAL

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT O R D E R

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.340 OF 2008 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.1273/2006)

       Leave granted.

       Bhathurusaman Sheik, the detenu and brother in law of respondent No.1, was  arrested on 30th October, 2004 at the airport on the ground that he was indulging in  the smuggling activities.  An order of detention was passed on 22nd November, 2004  by the Principal Secretary to the Government of Andhra Pradesh in exercise of the  powers conferred by Section 3 (1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and  Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974(as amended), (for short ’the Act’) for a  period of one year (the maximum period provided under the Act) from the date of  passing of the said order.         In a Habeas Corpus Petition filed by the brother in law of the detenu, the High  Court, relying upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Rajesh Gulati v.  Government of NCT of Delhi & Another, reported in (2002) 7 SCC 129, has held that  since the passport  of the detenu had been seized  SLP(Crl.) 1273/06 .... Contd. - 2 - by the detaining authority, it is unlikely that the detenu  could carry on with the  smuggling activities.  Accordingly, the High Court allowed the writ petition and  quashed the detention order.  It is also not disputed by the counsel for the  appellants that the detenu had already remained under detention for a period of  nine and half months approximately out of the maximum period of one year, as  provided under the Act.         Respondent No.1 is not present despite service.

       Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the judgment of this  Court in the case of Rajesh Gulati (supra), we are of the opinion that a case for  interference is not made out.  However, we make it clear that the impugned order of  the High Court is confined to the facts of the present case and this shall not be taken  as a precedent in future.         The Appeal is dismissed accordingly.