{"id":189186,"date":"2004-02-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-02-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-t-maideen-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-february-2004"},"modified":"2014-06-23T12:01:05","modified_gmt":"2014-06-23T06:31:05","slug":"a-t-maideen-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-february-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-t-maideen-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-february-2004","title":{"rendered":"A.T. Maideen vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 18 February, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
A.T. Maideen vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 18 February, 2004<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDated: 18\/02\/2004\n\nCoram\n\nThe Honourable Mr. Justice V.S. SIRPURKAR\nand\nThe Honourable Mr. Justice F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA\n\n\nH.C.P. No.908 OF 2003\n\nA.T. Maideen\nS\/o A.L. Ahmed Thambi\n(now detained in the\nCentral Prison, Chennai\nas COFEPOSA detenu)                     ...     Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\n1.  The State of Tamil Nadu\n    rep. by the Secretary to Government\n    Public (Law & Order) Department\n    Fort St. George\n    Chennai 600 009\n\n2.  The Union of India\n    rep. by the Secretary to Government\n    Ministry of Finance\n    Department of Revenue (COFEPOSA Unit)\n    Central Economic Intelligence Bureau\n    Janapath Bhavan, IV Floor\n    New Delhi 110 001\n\n3.  The Superintendent of\n      Central Prison\n    Central Prison\n    Chennai 600 003                     ...                 Respondents\n\n\n\n\n        Petition  under  Art.226  of  the  Constitution, praying for a Writ of\nHabeas Corpus as stated in the petition\n\nFor Petitioner         ::  Mr.  K.A.  Jabbar\n\nFor Respondents ::  Mr.  A.  Navaneethakrishnan\n                        Addl.  Public Prosecutor\n                        Mrs.  Vanathi Srinivasan\n                        A.C.G.S.C.\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
V.S.  SIRPURKAR, J.\n<\/p>\n
                An  order  passed  by  the first respondent, dated 22-05-2003,
\nunder the provisions of Sec.3(1)(i) of the Conservation  of  Foreign  Exchange
\nand  Prevention  of  Smuggling  Activities  Act,  1974 (in short COFEPOSA ),
\ndirecting the preventive detention of one A.T.  Maideen, son of A.  L.   Ahmed
\nThambi,,  with  a view to prevent him from smuggling the goods in future is in
\nchallenge in this habeas corpus petition.\n<\/p>\n
                2.  Upon the intelligence information,  the  officers  of  the
\nDirectorate  of  Revenue  Intelligence  (DRI)  came to know that red sanders (
\nprohibited wood) were being exported as  popcorn  maize  under  Shipping  Bill
\nNO.1585090 dated 25-4-2003 filed in the name of M\/s.  Vatchala Enterprises and
\nthat  the detenu and one Abdul Lasa were concerned in the said illicit export.
\nThe DRI officials located the said container covered by the aforesaid shipping
\nbill, which was loaded on the trailer inside the  Container  Terminal  at  the
\nChennai Harbour on 26-4-2003 and detained the same.\n<\/p>\n
        2.1.  The said container was examined at Bharathi Dock Yard of Chennai
\nHarbour  in  presence of the independent witnesses and also in the presence of
\nR.  Adhikesavan, Proprietor of M\/s.  Vatchala Enterprises, Chennai and  Custom
\nHouse Agent (CHA),  M\/s.    Fame Shipping Agency, Chennai, S.  Chengalvarayan,
\nowner-cum-driver of the concerned trailer, B.  Lenin of Container  Agent  M\/s.
\nGoodrich  Maritime,  Chennai  as  also  one  Balaji,  Manager  of  Numbal A.S.
\nShipping Agencies (P) Limited, B.    Prabhakar,  Forestor,  Forest  Protection
\nSquad , Chennai and the officers of the Customs Department.\n<\/p>\n
        2.3.   As  per  the  shipping  bill,  the  name  of  the consignee was
\nmentioned to be M\/s.  Golden Global Impex Pte.  Ltd.   at  Singapore  and  the
\ndeclared consignment  was  400  bags of popcorn maize, weighing 25 Kgs.  each.
\nIt was also found that the container was cleared by the Customs at Numbal  CFS
\non  26-4-2003 and despatched and the consignment arrived Chennai Harbour by an
\nidentified trailer.\n<\/p>\n
        2.4.  It was found on the examination, though the Customs seal and the
\nseal of M\/s.  Goodrich Maritime were found intact, one of the latches  of  the
\ncontainer was found to be tampered and on further examination of the container
\nby  cutting  open the seals, it was found to contain 205 gunny bags containing
\nreddish wodden logs of different sizes and some popcorn maize spilled  on  the
\nfloor of  the  container.  The reddish wodden logs were confirmed as being red
\nsanders.\n<\/p>\n
        2.5.  An investigation began on this.  Thiru  Adhikesavan,  Proprietor
\nof  M\/s.Vatchala  Enterprises, Chennai and the Customs House Agent stated that
\nhe was not the actual owner of the goods and he had lent  his  companys  name
\nand  the IMPEX Code for the export of popcorn maize for monetary consideration
\nand that one Thiru Kaleel had approached him and mediated for the said export.
\nThe owner of the trailer had stated during the investigation that  Abdul  Lasa
\nhad  met him at Numbal CFS and paid Rs.1,000\/- towards diesel expenses for the
\ntransport of export-cargo from Numbal CFS to  Chennai  Port  and  the  balance
\namount would be paid by the detenu, who was the owner of the consignment.\n<\/p>\n
        2.6.   These  red  sanders, weighing about 10.475 MTs., were seized by
\nthe officers of DRI under a mahazar as the  same  were  prohibited  items  for
\nexport.  They  were  re-packed  and kept in the same container.  The logs were
\nthereafter handed over the authority for safe custody.  The  broken  lock  and
\nthe Goodrich Seal were also seized.\n<\/p>\n
        2.7.   The  residential premises of the detenu were searched on 27-4-2
\n003 and during the search, it was found that a sum of Rs.8,00,000\/- in  Indian
\nCurrency was  kept  inside  the cupboard in the bedroom.  It was stated in the
\npresence of some independent witnesses by the detenu that this amount was part
\nof the sale proceeds of the red sanders consignment exported under  the  guise
\nof export of Popcorn Maize in March 2003.  That amount was seized.  The office
\npremises  were  also  searched  by  the  DRI  officials  in  presence  of  the
\nindependent  witnesses  as  also  in  presence  of  Abdul  Lasa,  Manager   of
\nM\/s.Genexpo  Trading  (P)  Ltd.,  Chennai  and during the search two keys were
\nfound.  Abdul Lasa stated that the keys were of the godowns  at  Puzhal  where
\nthe declared  export  cargo,  viz.    Popcorn  Maize was destuffed and the red
\nsanders were stuffed in the above said container.  The keys were also seized.\n<\/p>\n
        2.8.  The godown at Ambattur was identified by Abdul Lasa and that was
\nalso searched wherein 400 gunny bags were found containing popcorn maize.   On
\nenquiry,  Abdul Lasa informed that the said gunny bags were the declared cargo
\nof the above said shipping bill, which were removed on the previous  day  from
\nthe container and substituted by the red sanders, which were earlier available
\nin the godown.\n<\/p>\n
        2.9.   The  owner of the trailer gave a statement that at the instance
\nof one Khan Bhai one empty container was transported from Sanco CFS to  Numbal
\nCFS  in  his trailer and on 26-4-2003 popcorn maize was loaded whereupon Abdul
\nLasa came there and gave Rs.1,000\/- to Khan Bhai for diesel expenses and  that
\nwhen  the  container  was  being  moved  to Chennai Harbour, a lean, black and
\nmedium height person also came in the trailer, which was driven by Khan  Bhai,
\nand  at the instance of the said person, the trailer was stopped near Kolathur
\nDouble Lake on the Puzhal road and thereafter they went for food and when they
\nreturned back, the trailer was not there and after half-an-hour another driver
\nbrought the trailer and then they reached the Chennai Harbour.  When he  asked
\nAbdul  Lasa for the balance amount, he was informed that the goods belonged to
\nthe detenu and that the dete nu would pay the balance.\n<\/p>\n
        2.10.  The authorities got the clue from the statement of  Adhikesavan
\nthat  he  had  lent  his  companys  name  and  the  IMPEX Code for a monetary
\nconsideration of Rs.5,000\/- to one Khaleel at the instance of one  Arokiasamy,
\na broker and as per the arrangement, it was decided to send an empty container
\nto  Numbal  CFS  with  a clerk; that Khaleels company would bring the procorn
\nmaize for stuffing at Numbal CFS; M\/s.  Fame would handle  the  CHA  work  and
\ntheir  clerk  would take up the processing of papers and stuffing of container
\nat the CFS and would be there till the container was stuffed  and  sealed  and
\nall  paper work completed and thereafter the stuffed container would be handed
\nover to the transporter arranged by  Khaleel,  who  would  take  care  of  the
\ntransportation of the container to the Port and all other export work relating
\nto the  said  container.   As per this arrangement, on 19-3-2003, they filed a
\nshipping bill, bearing No.1570116 in the name of M\/s.    Vatchala  Enterprises
\nfor the  export  of  a consignment of popcorn maize to Singapore.  Adhikesavan
\nfurther stated that though the name of his company, M\/s.  Vatchala Enterprises
\nwas to be found in the bill, he was not in any way concerned with  the  seized
\nconsignment  and  that  he had only lent his companys name and the IMPEX Code
\nfor the monetary consideration to Khaleel.\n<\/p>\n
        2.11.  The detenu himself had made a statement that he was  doing  the
\nexport-import  business  from  the  year  1993,  exporting goods to Singapore,
\nMalaysia and other countries and that for the  past  two  years  he  had  been
\nexporting  Agarbathis,  onion,  steel goods in the name of M\/s.Genexpo Trading
\nCompany.  He further owned up that the goods in the said  container  were  red
\nsanders,  which  were  stuffed in the said container and that he got a message
\nfrom Khaleel that on the morning of 26-4-2003, popcorn maize was  loaded  into
\nthe container  at  Numbal  CFS and was cleared.  It was owned up by the detenu
\nthat he asked Abdul Lasa to wait near Kolathur Double Lake and on  arrival  of
\nthe  trailer  with the stuffed container, he was to exchange the goods therein
\nas told by Khaleel and  after  exchanging  the  goods,  the  detenu  was  also
\ninformed by  Lasa.   The DRI officials further came to know from the statement
\nof the detenu that Khaleel was a trader in foreign goods at the  Burma  Bazaar
\nand  Chennai Airport and that he owns a shop in Burma Bazaar, Chennai and that
\nabout a month back, Khaleel had approached him to introduce the  party  having
\nred  sanders  as he would arrange for the export of the same, which the detenu
\nhad accepted and arranged a party called Mathi, who had the red sanders.    He
\nalso  accepted  to  have  taken  Rs.50,000\/-  from  Ganesan  and it was at the
\ninstance of Khaleel that the further deals were arranged.  It was  also  owned
\nup  in the statement that Rs.8,00,000\/-, representing the sale proceeds of the
\nred sanders sent by him in March, 2003 and that popcorn maize loaded into  the
\ncontainer  was procured by Khaleel; that Abdul Lasa was working in his company
\nand that he attended his office work as per his instructions.\n<\/p>\n
        2.12.  In short, it was owned up by the  detenu  that  he  was  deeply
\ninvolved  in  smuggling  out the prohibited goods like red sanders and that he
\nhad done it systematically by tampering with the Customs seals and that he was
\nbenefited in that.  From the other materials,  the  authorities  came  to  the
\nconclusion that the detenu was knowingly involved in the whole racket and that
\nhe had committed the offences under the Customs Act.\n<\/p>\n
        2.13.  The detenu as well as Abdul Lasa were arrested on 27-4-2003 and
\nwere remanded to the judicial custody.  They were also being proceeded against
\non the  criminal  charges.    It  was  on  this basis that the above mentioned
\ndetention order came to be clamped against the detenu.\n<\/p>\n
                3.  Shri Jabbar, learned counsel  appearing  for  the  detenu\/
\npetitioner, painstakingly took us through the grounds of detention as also the
\nother allied records.\n<\/p>\n
        3.1.    The   first  contention  of  Shri  Jabbar  is  that  there  is
\nnonapplication of mind on the part of the detaining authority and for this, it
\nwas pointed out by him that in paragraphs (xxiii) to (xxv) of the  grounds  of
\ndetention,  bail  applications  and  some  other documents were relied upon to
\nsuggest that in these bail applications, the  detenu  had  claimed  to  be  an
\ninnocent and  that  his  statement  was obtained by coercion.  Learned counsel
\nthen drew our attention to paragraph (xxv) and pointed out  that  a  statement
\nwas  made  therein  that  on  12-5-2003 a petition for extension of remand was
\nfiled before the Magistrate.  However, the detenu was not produced as  it  was
\nstated  in  the letter by the jail authorities that the detenu was admitted in
\nthe hospital and, therefore, the Magistrate directed to produce the detenu  on
\n14-5-20 03.    The  complaint  of the learned counsel against this is that the
\ndetaining authority, though had noted that the  detenu  was  admitted  in  the
\nhospital,  did  not  note  the fact that between 12-5-2003 and 14-5-20 03, the
\ndetenu was not in the custody  of  the  jail  authorities.    Learned  counsel
\nfurther  points  out  that  the  remand  was  then extended on 14 -5-2003 till
\n28-5-2003 and it was during this period that the detention order  came  to  be
\npassed on  22-5-2003.  According to the learned counsel, it was incumbent upon
\nthe detaining authority to note that  between  12-5-2003  and  14-5-2003,  the
\ndetenu was not in the jail custody and he was not produced and, therefore, the
\norder  passed shows nonconsideration of a vital fact that at the time when the
\ndetention order was passed, the detenu was in the hospital.\n<\/p>\n
        3.2.  In our opinion, this contention is completely incorrect.  In the
\nfirst place, the contention that the detenu was not in the jail but was in the
\nhospital as he was admitted as an indoor patient and, therefore, he could  not
\nbe deemed  to  be an inmate of the jail is itself incorrect.  We are satisfied
\nfrom the documents on record that since the detenu was not well, he  was  sent
\nto  the  hospital and admitted as an indoor patient in the hospital, a ward of
\nwhich is itself treated as a jail.  That is the argument of the learned Public
\nProsecutor, which has really not been controverted seriously  by  the  learned
\ncounsel for  the  petitioner.   This is apart from the fact that even this was
\nnot so yet, if the detenu was admitted as an indoor patient in the hospital at
\nthe instance of the jail authorities, he would always be deemed to be  in  the
\njail custody  even  if physically he was not inside the jail premises.  In our
\nopinion, the non-mentioning of the fact in the grounds  that  the  detenu  was
\nadmitted  in  the hospital as an indoor patient would not make any difference.
\nAll that the detaining authority has to know is whether the detenu was in  the
\njail custody.  There is no dispute that the detenu herein was in the custody
\nof the  jail  authorities by a valid remand.  We, therefore, do not think that
\nthere was any error or non-application of  mind  on  any  count.    The  first
\ncontention is, therefore, rejected.\n<\/p>\n
                4.   Learned  counsel  secondly  urged that the detenu did not
\nhave any working knowledge in English and  the  translations  of  the  English
\ndocuments  12 to 14 at pages 138 to 141 of the paper-book were not supplied to
\nhim and that when they were supplied, it was beyond resentation on  the  basis
\nof those  documents.    This  is  apart from the fact that those documents are
\nneither relied upon documents nor referred to documents.  Therefore,  when
\nit  is  admitted  by  the  learned counsel that ultimately the translations of
\nthose documents were supplied, though a  little  later,  we  do  not  see  any
\nprejudice  to  the  detenu  or  for that matter, any infraction of any rule or
\nright of the detenu.  The second contention is, therefore, rejected.\n<\/p>\n
                5.  The further contention is that the detention was  for  the
\npurpose  of  preventing the detenu from smuggling the goods in future whereas,
\nfrom the grounds all that it  could  be  said  was  that  he  had  abetted  in
\nsmuggling the goods.  Learned counsel invited our attention to the language of
\nSec.3(1)(i)  of  COFEPOSA  wherefrom,  according  to  the  learned counsel, it
\nappears that smuggling goods was different from  abetting of the smuggling
\nof goods.  He, therefore, suggests that there has been non-application of mind
\non the part of the detaining authority.\n<\/p>\n
        5.1.  The argument is wholly incorrect because  in  paragraph  2,  the
\nauthority  has  stated that the State Government are satisfied that the detenu
\nhad indulged in smuggling goods.  We have deliberately given  the  facts  in
\ndetails to show that it was clear to the detaining authority from the material
\nthat  the  detenu had not merely abetted smuggling but, he was himself a party
\nto the smuggling racket and had thus smuggled the goods.\n<\/p>\n
        5.2.  Under Sec.2(39) of the Customs Act, smuggling  is  defined  as
\nunder:\n<\/p>\n
smuggling,  in  relation  to  any goods, means any act or omission which will
\nrender such goods liable to confiscation under section 111 or section 113
\nSec.2(e) COFEPOSA defines smuggling as follows:
\nsmuggling has the same meaning as in clause (39) of section 2 of the  Customs
\nAct,  1962 and all its grammatical variations and cognate expressions shall be
\nconstrued accordingly
\nTherefore, it is obvious that the detenu was engaged in an act, in relation to
\nthe goods which rendered such goods liable for confiscation.  The  authorities
\nhave  in  the grounds specifically stated that the goods, which the detenu was
\ntrying to smuggle out of India, were liable for confiscation.  This  is  apart
\nfrom  the  fact  that  abetment  of smuggling is not by itself made an offence
\nunder the Customs Act.  It is clear from the  grounds  and  more  particularly
\nground  (xxvi)  that goods which were dealt with by the detenu were liable for
\nconfiscation.  The authorities have clearly mentioned  that  the  accused  had
\ncommitted an  offence under Sec.114 read with Sec.135 of the Customs Act.  We,
\ntherefore, do not think  that  there  was  anything  wrong  in  the  detaining
\nauthority  saying  that the accused had commited the act of smuggling and that
\nit was necessary to clamp the preventive detention  for  preventing  him  from
\nsmuggling the goods.  The contention is, therefore, rejected.\n<\/p>\n
                6.    Learned   counsel   further  took  us  to  the  detenus
\nrepresentation dated 2-6-2003 and pointed  out  that  he  had  sought  certain
\ndocuments, including the shipping documents and the subsequent documents.  Our
\nattention was invited to paragraph 7(iv) wherein, the detenu had sought copies
\nof  all  the  export  documents  relating  to  the  export referred to in that
\nparagraph.   It  is  the  argument  of  the  learned  counsel  that   in   his
\nrepresentation, the detenu had stated that in the grounds of detention, it was
\nnoted  that  he  had involved in illicit export of prohibited items on earlier
\noccasions in a similar  manner  and,  therefore,  he  had  sought  the  export
\ndocuments relating  to  the  said  previous shipments.  It is also pointed out
\nthat even the subsequent documents, which include the shipping documents, were
\nsought for in this representation.  Learned counsel says that these  documents
\nnot having been supplied to him there was a breach of the right on the part of
\nthe detenu.\n<\/p>\n
        6.1.   In the first place, these documents were never relied upon or
\neven referred  to  in  the  grounds.    Secondly,  the  petitioner  in   his
\nrepresentation had  never  specifically asked any specific documents.  A round
\nabout request by  generally  referring  to  some  documents  would  be  of  no
\nconsequence  and  would  not entail any liability on the part of the detaining
\nauthority or the State Government to supply the documents.  We are  completely
\nconvinced that the contention has no merits.  It is, therefore, rejected.  The
\nso-called shipping bills, etc., in our opinion, were completely irrelevant.\n<\/p>\n
        6.2.   Learned  counsel  tried  to  buttress his contention further by
\nsaying that two statements of Arokiasamy were supplied to him and  from  those
\nstatements,  it  was  clear  that  the  petitioner  had  no direct hand in the
\nsmuggling.  Arokiasamys statement is undoubtedly a referred to document.  Mr.
\nJabbar wanted us to note  from  the  statements  of  Arokiasamy  that  it  was
\nessential  that  the  documents sought for by the detenu in his representation
\nwere bound to be supplied to  him.    In  spite  of  going  through  both  the
\nstatements, we  do  not  find  any  relevance.  Nor do we see any necessity to
\nsupply  to  the  detenu  the  documents  which  were  not  even  properly   or
\nspecifically mentioned in the representation.\n<\/p>\n
                7.   The next contention raised by the learned counsel is that
\nthese two statements of Arokiasamy dated 12-6-2003 and 10-7-2003 were not  put
\nbefore the Advisory Board.  It was pointed out by the learned counsel that the
\nAdvisory  Board  had  met  on  15-7-2003  and,  therefore,  the  statements of
\nArokiasamy, which were recorded by the Customs authorities were  bound  to  be
\nplaced before  the Advisory Board.  We do not see how Arokiasamys statements,
\nwhich were recorded during the further  investigation,  would  in  any  manner
\nbecome relevant  documents  to  the  detention of the detenu.  The argument is
\nundoubtedly based on the decision of this Court in K.V.  JESUDASAN v.    STATE
\nOF  TAMIL  NADU<\/a>  (1989  Crl.L.J.637) in which the Division Bench of this Court
\nheld that even if a document comes into existence after the  detention  order,
\nif  it  has  some  relevance to the detention, it should necessarily be placed
\nbefore the Advisory Board.  Even applying this test, we do not see as  to  how
\nthe  statements  of  Arokiasamy  are  in  any  way  relevant to the subject of
\ndetention.  We have gone through the statements ourselves.  There  is  nothing
\nin  those  statements to suggest that the earlier allegations made against the
\npetitioner were falsified in any manner.  We, therefore,  do  not  think  that
\nthis contention can be accepted.  The contention is, therefore, rejected.\n<\/p>\n
                8.    Learned   counsel   further  contended  that  the  State
\nGovernment failed to send the relied upon documents to the Central  Government
\nalong with its report under Sec.3 of the COFEPOSA and, therefore, the Central
\nGovernment was handicapped while deciding the same.\n<\/p>\n
        8.1.    Learned   Central  Government  Standing  Counsel  invites  our
\nattention to the counters of the State Government and the Central  Government.
\nIn  paragraph  17  of  the  counter  filed  by  the  State  Government,  it is
\nspecifically pointed out that the  copies  of  the  detention  order  and  the
\ngrounds of detention were sent to the Central Government as per the provisions
\nof COFEPOSA  by  speed  post.    The  grounds of detention would mean also the
\nmaterials in support of the grounds.  That is precisely the import.  Even from
\nthe counter of the Central  Government,  it  can  be  said  that  the  Central
\nGovernment had  considered the whole records sent by the State Government.  If
\nthis is so, there can be no  question  of  accepting  the  argument  that  the
\nnecessary material documents supporting the grounds were not sent by the State
\nGovernment.   We  would not, therefore, attach any importance to this argument
\nand would choose to reject the same.\n<\/p>\n
                9.  Lastly, learned counsel suggested that in this  case,  the
\nlast  document  is  dated 22-5-2003 while the detention order is also dated 22\n<\/p>\n
-5-2003 and, therefore, it was clear that the document dated  22-5-200  3  was
\nadded only subsequently after the detention order was passed.  Learned counsel
\nrelied on the decision in SADIQ BATCHA v.  the DEPUTY SECREATARY TO GOVERNMENT
\nOF TAMIL NADU (1989 L.W.  Crl.  379).  In that case, there was a clear finding
\nthat  the corresponding documents were added in the grounds of detention after
\nthe detention order was passed by the competent authority.  There  can  be  no
\nquestion that  such exercise is not possible.  However, we do not see anything
\nthere in the pleadings or in the records to suggest  that  such  a  thing  has
\nhappened.   Merely  because  the last document is dated 22-5-2003, it does not
\nmean that the same came to be added only after the detention order was  passed
\nand not before it.\n<\/p>\n
                10.  We do not see any merit in the matter.  The writ petition
\nis, therefore, dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
Index:Yes
\nWebsite:Yes<\/p>\n
Jai<\/p>\n
To:\n<\/p>\n
1.  Secretary to Government
\nState of Tamil Nadu
\nPublic (Law & Order) Department
\nFort St.  George
\nChennai 600 009<\/p>\n
2.  Seceretary to Government
\nUnion of India
\nMinistry of Finance
\nDepartment of Revenue (COFEPOSA Unit)
\nCentral Economic Intelligence Bureau
\nJanapath Bhavan, IV Floor
\nNew Delhi 110 001<\/p>\n
3.  The Superintendent of
\nCentral Prison
\nCentral Prison
\nChennai 600 003<\/p>\n
4.  The Public Prosecutor
\nO\/o Public Prosecutor
\nHigh Court
\nMadras<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court A.T. Maideen vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 18 February, 2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 18\/02\/2004 Coram The Honourable Mr. Justice V.S. SIRPURKAR and The Honourable Mr. Justice F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA H.C.P. No.908 OF 2003 A.T. Maideen S\/o A.L. Ahmed Thambi (now detained in the Central […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-189186","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nA.T. Maideen vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 18 February, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-t-maideen-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-february-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"A.T. Maideen vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 18 February, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-t-maideen-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-february-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2004-02-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-06-23T06:31:05+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-t-maideen-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-february-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-t-maideen-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-february-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"A.T. Maideen vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 18 February, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-02-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-06-23T06:31:05+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-t-maideen-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-february-2004\"},\"wordCount\":3724,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-t-maideen-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-february-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-t-maideen-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-february-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-t-maideen-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-february-2004\",\"name\":\"A.T. Maideen vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 18 February, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-02-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-06-23T06:31:05+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-t-maideen-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-february-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-t-maideen-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-february-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-t-maideen-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-february-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"A.T. Maideen vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 18 February, 2004\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"A.T. Maideen vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 18 February, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-t-maideen-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-february-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"A.T. Maideen vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 18 February, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-t-maideen-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-february-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-02-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-06-23T06:31:05+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-t-maideen-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-february-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-t-maideen-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-february-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"A.T. Maideen vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 18 February, 2004","datePublished":"2004-02-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-06-23T06:31:05+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-t-maideen-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-february-2004"},"wordCount":3724,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-t-maideen-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-february-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-t-maideen-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-february-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-t-maideen-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-february-2004","name":"A.T. Maideen vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 18 February, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-02-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-06-23T06:31:05+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-t-maideen-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-february-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-t-maideen-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-february-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-t-maideen-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-february-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"A.T. Maideen vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 18 February, 2004"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/189186","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=189186"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/189186\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=189186"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=189186"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=189186"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}