ASHWANI KUMAR VERMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Order of detention passed on 11/08/2000 by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India under Section 3 (1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange & Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (in short, 'the Act' ) pursuant to which the petitioner Ashwani Kumar @ Verma ( hereinafter referred to as detenu' ) is detained in the Centra) Jail, Tihar, New Delhi, is assailed in this habeas corpus petition.

(2.) Detention of the detenu was considered necessary by the Detaining Authority with a view to prevent him from smuggling goods in future. The grounds of detention dated 11/08/2000 were supptied to the detenu in both English and Hindi language. The detenu was made aware of his right to make representation against the detention to the Detaining Authority, Centra) Government as we)) as the Advisory Board. It was indicated that the representation meant for the Detaining Authority was to be addressed to the Joint Secretary, (COFEPOSA), Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Centra) Economic Inte!)igence Bureau; the representation meant for the Centra) Government was to be addressed to the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue; and the representation meant for the Advisory Board to be addressed to the Chairman, Advisory Board (COFEPOSA), De)hi High Court. The grounds were communicated for the purpose of clause 5 of Article 22 of the Constitution of India, 1950 ( in short, 'the Constitution' ) and Section 3 (3) of the Act. The detenu made representations to the Detaining Authority, the Centra) Government and the Advisory Board, but the prayer for revoking the detention did not find acceptance. In support of the writ petition primariiy following stands have been taken:- a) there was no ground for directing detention; b) there was variation between the English version and the Hindi version of the grounds of detention on material aspects, thereby depriving the detenu the opportunity of making an effective representation. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, submitted that the factual position highlighted in the grounds of detention show the propensities of the detenu's indulging in activities considered objectionalble and clearly indicated on the basis of past conduct, the propensity to indulge in such activities in future. It was further submitted that the detenu was highly qualified and his feigned ignorance of English language was only ruse to hide the truth. Even if it is accepted, there were minor variations in the two versions that in no manner prejudice to the detenu and or deprived him from an opportunity to make an effective representation. At the time of hearing, the challenge to the order was restricted only on the ground of variation in the two versions and to the ground of non-examination of the witness.

(3.) Main ground of challenge is alleged variation in the two versions. The difference between English and Hindi version are as follows:-