COFEPOSA Detention Sustained: Karnataka HC Rejects Habeas Corpus Plea in ₹12.56 Crore Gold Smuggling Case [Read Order]

The Karnataka High Court has upheld a preventive detention order passed under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA), refusing to interfere with the detention on the ground that the detaining authority had arrived at its subjective satisfaction after due consideration of relevant material and without any procedural infirmity warranting judicial intervention.

The writ petition was filed by Smt. Rama Raju, the mother of the detenue Tarun Konduru Raju, challenged the detention order issued under Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. The case arose from an interception at Kempegowda International Airport, Bengaluru, where a co-accused was found carrying foreign-marked gold bars weighing approximately 14.21 kilograms, valued at ₹12.56 crore.

Investigations revealed alleged involvement of the detenue in abetting and facilitating transnational gold smuggling operations linked to Dubai, including procurement, coordination, and misuse of foreign citizenship to evade scrutiny. The detaining authority concluded that the detenue posed a continuing threat to the conservation of foreign exchange and prevention of smuggling, leading to the issuance of the preventive detention order, which was subsequently confirmed by the Central Government after receiving the opinion of the Advisory Board.

The petitioner was represented by Hashmath Pasha and Kariappa N.A, who contended that the detenue had been falsely implicated solely on the basis of statements made by a co-accused and that there was no independent material to establish his involvement in smuggling activities. It was argued that the alleged acts did not constitute abetment under the Customs Act, 1962, and that the detenue had no prior history of smuggling.

They submitted that evidence was either not supplied or supplied in an unusable form, thereby violating the detenue’s right to make an effective representation under Article 22 of the Constitution of India. Additional objections were raised regarding delay in consideration of the detenue’s representation, failure to provide translated copies of certain documents, and absence of a live and proximate link between the alleged past acts and the necessity for preventive detention.

The authorities were represented by Kuloor Arvind Kamath, Shanthi Bhushan H., and Thejesh P., who contended that the detention order was based on extensive material gathered during investigation, including statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, electronic evidence, travel records, and seizure-related documents. They submitted that the detenue was an integral part of an organised international smuggling syndicate that had facilitated repeated import of foreign-origin gold in violation of the Baggage Rules, 2016, resulting in substantial evasion of customs duty.

It was argued that preventive detention under Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, is distinct from punitive custody and is justified even where criminal proceedings are pending, provided there is likelihood of future prejudicial activity. Further, denied any procedural lapses and asserted that all constitutional safeguards had been duly complied with.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice Vijaykumar A. Patil dismissed the writ petition and upheld the detention order. The Court held that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority was founded on cogent and relevant material demonstrating the detenue’s active involvement in organised smuggling activities.

The Bench observed that courts exercising jurisdiction in habeas corpus petitions cannot sit in appeal over the sufficiency of material considered by the detaining authority. The Bench found no violation of procedural safeguards, noting that evidence was supplied, representations were considered by the competent authorities, and statutory timelines under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, were adhered to.

The Court held that the preventive detention was justified to prevent the likelihood of continued smuggling activities, and no grounds were made out to interfere with the detention order.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates