BABLABAI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The wife of the detenu has filed the above writ petition, against an order of detention made under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act ('the Act' for short). The order is dated 26-10-1990 made by the Government of India. The order was served on the detenu only 23-4-1991 as stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The grounds in support of the order of detention served on the detenu states that the officers of the enforcement had information that the detenu was returning home on 12-7-1990 after making "havala payments" with sheets of addresses of persons to whom payments had been made, etc. Earlier, on the basis of intelligence gathered by the said officers the residential premises of the detenu was searched by them on 7-4-1990, as a result of which 15 sheets of documents were seized.However, the detenu was not available at the time of search. On 12-7-1990 while the detenu was returning home officers intercepted him at the junction of J.M. Road and C.T. Street, Bangalore. Thereafter he was searched seizing 29 sheets of paper (J.M. Road was typed as A.M. Road in the grounds of detention). The statement of detenu was recorded by the Enforcement Officers, Bangalore, after issuing an appropriate summons in that regard. The grounds further indicate that the officers suspected that the detenu had some connection with the person called Mohatesham Mohamed Ismail who was staying at room No. 302 of Hotel Maurya. The said room was also search subsequently and the statement of M. Mohamed Ismail was recorded. Para 7 of the grounds of detention gives the details of the statement made by M. Mohmed Ismail. Para 8 of the said grounds of detention gives the details of further statement made by the detenu under summons on 13-7-1990. Other relevant facts are narrated in various paras of the grounds of detention. After narrating all these facts at para 16 the Detaining Authority stated as follows :

(2.) On 9-5-1991 the detenu made a representation to the Detaining Authority (Annexure-E) wherein inter alia he stated that the order and grounds of detention given in Hindi were not clearly and legibly written and the documents furnished were not in Devanagiri script nor number of words were in Hindi. He further stated that he was unable to understand them (obviously referring to the order, grounds and the documents). Therefore the detenu stated that he was unable to make representation to the Detaining Authority, etc. On 15-5-1991 the detenu made a further representation reiterating the statements contained in the earlier representation. Thereafter he tried to traverse each paragraph of grounds of detention. In respect of para 7 the detenu stated that he was not connected with the facts stated therein and that he did not know any person by name Mohtesham Mohamed Ismail. Similarly he denied the contents of para 8. The detenu asserted that the statements recorded on 13-7-90 were not voluntary and they were obtained by officers by using force. He repeated that he did not know anything about the contents of the said alleged statements. There was also denial of other facts referred in the various paragraphs of the grounds of detention.

(3.) It is not necessary for us to refer to other facts having regard to the contention advanced before us by Mr. Jeshtmal. Though the learned Counsel raised several grounds we are of the view that it is sufficient to refer to one of them as follows :- The learned Counsel contended that the Hindi version of the grounds of detention was at variance with the English version of grounds of detention. Especially paragraphs 7 and 8 have been completely altered. A substantial part of paragraph 7 of the grounds of detention has been omitted in para 7 of the Hindi version. After a few sentences narrating the alleged statements made by the detenu on 13-7-90 the structure of the sentences stood altered and thereafter the omitted portion of paragraph 7 was continued as part of paragraph 8 and after completing the said part from paragraph 7, the last portion containing a few sentences of para 8 were incorporated.