GIMIKPIOTR versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR.

Citation: [2009] 15 S.C.R. 889 · Decided: 13-11-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DALVEER BHANDARI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

.. 
\ 
I 
[2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 889 
GIMIKPIOTR 
v. 
STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 2121 of 20Q9) 
NOVEMBER 13, 2009 
[DALVEER BHANDARI AND H.L. DATTU, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of 
Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 - s. 3 (1)(i) - Detenu trying to 
-"+ 
smuggle foreign currency outside the country - Detention 
order uls. 3 (1)(i) - Passport also impounded- Challenge to -
c 
Held: In matters of personal liberty, standard of proof needs to 
be high to justify order of preventive detention - Material 
provided by State not enough to justify curtailment of liberty o( 
appellant under order of preventive detention - Foreign 
currency cannot be smuggled as person cannot move out of 
the country on account of his passport being impounded -
D 
~ Thus, detention order not sustainable - Order of High Court 
set aside . 
Appellant-polish citizen, tried to smuggle foreign 
currency outside the country. The said currency was 
seized. The detention order was passed u/s. 3(1 )(i) of the 
E 
Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of 
Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 to prevent him· from 
smuggling goods in future. His passport was also 
)-
impounded. Appellant challenged the detention order. 
High Court upheld the detention order. 
F 
The question which arose for consideration in this 
appeal are whether the .respondent-State can prove 
satisfactorily that there is propensity and potentiality of the 
appellant-detenu to engage. in smuggling activities in the 
future, if set free; and whether the impounding of the G 
passport of the appellant so as to prevent him from leaving 
) 
the country will suffice in satisfying the object sought to 
be achieved by passing the detention order. 
889 
H 
890 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Conservation of Foreign Exchange and 
~ 
Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 197 4 is enacted to 
curb the thriving smuggling busii:iess of foreign 
currencies, antiques and other valuable items from India 
B to its neighbouring countries. From the objects and 
reasons of the Act, the purpose of the Act is to prevent 
violation of foreign exchange regulations or smuggling 
activities which are having increasingly deleterious effect 
on the national economy and thereby serious effect on the 
-\.,· 
c security of the State. The justification for passing the order 
of detention is suspicion or reasonable probability of the 
person sought to be detained to prevent him in carrying 
on smuggling activities in the future. The potentiality or 
propensity of the person to engage in future prejudicial 
p 
activities needs to be proved. (Paras 19 and 21] (899-F-G; 
900-D-E] 
Union of India vs. Paul Manickam AIR 2003 SC 4622 -
.... 
referred to. 
... 
1.2. Even a single solitary act can prove the propensity 
E and potentiality of the detenu to carry on with similar 
r-
smuggling activities in future. The mere fact that on one 
'I-
occasion person smuggled goods into the country may 
constitute a legitimate basis for detaining a person under 
COFEPOSA. For this purpose, the antecedents of the 
F 
person, facts and circumstances of the case needs to be 
taken into consideration. In the instant case, the 
respondents seek to rely extensively on the confession 
statement made by the detenu, where he had admitted to 
be carrying the foreign currency in return for monetary 
consideration. It cannot be said that the confession made 
G by the appellant proves that, the appellant is a part of a 
smuggling ring and hence his detention is warranted 
under the provisions of COFEPOSA. In the statement made 
before the customs authorities, the appellant has only 
_( 
~arrated his antecedents, the nature of business carried 
H on by him while he was in Singapore and how he was 
. 
. 
) 
GIMIK PIOTR v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR. 
891 
induced to carry the foreign currency by a person who has 
A 
business dealings in Singapore. In the statement so made, 
he has not even suggested that he had indulged himself 
in foreign currency smuggling activities earlier. It is not the 
case of the respondents that if he is not detained, he would 
indulge himself in foreign currency smuggling activities 
8 
and it is their specific case that he may abet the smuggling 
activity. [Para 24] (902-C-G] 
Pooja Batra vs. Union of India (2009) 5 SCC 296; Gurdev 
Singh v. Union of India (2002) 1 SCC 545, relied on. 
1.3. During the c

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.