HARBHAJAN SINGH JAURA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India been filed challenging the order of detention dated 29.7.1991 passed by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as COFEPOSA).

(2.) The brief facts are as follows : The petitioner was arrested by the Directorate of Revenue Intellience on 17.7.1991 when acting on intelligence, the officers of the Directorate Revenue Intelligence intercepted two white Maruti cars bearing Registration No. DL-3C-B-3050 and DL-4C-1957 in front of Cargo Complex near Indira Gandhi International Airport. -On search of Car No. DL-3C-B-3050gold bearing foreign marking was recovered. It is alleged that the said gold was smuggled into India by one Gurdip Singh who travelled to India from Hong Kong by Air France Flight AF-183. The petitioner was travelling in Car No. DL-4C-1957 alongwith one Rajinder Singh in the said car. The. petitioner was produced before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on the same day and remanded to judicial custody. The petitioner has been in detention in the Central Jail, Tihar since then.

(3.) The petitioner has challenged the order of detention on two grounds. It was firstly submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has studied only upto 4th class in Government Primary Rainak Bazar School, District Jullundur. He studied in Punjabi in the said School. The petitioner's mother tongue is also Punjabi and he docs not know English. However, the order of detention and the grounds of detention and other documents relied on by the detaining authority which were supplied to the petitioner were in English. Thus, the petitioner has been deprived of his right of making effective representation against the detention as provided under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. It was next contended that the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondent on 2.8.1991 by the 84 same was not considered and disposed of by the respondent till 5.9.1991. Learned Counsel submitted that by the said representation the petitioner had asked for copies of the ducuments to be supplied in the language known to him i.e. Punjabi and the respondent supplied the documents after the present writ petition was filed by him in this Court. Learned Counsel further submitted that the respondent had not explained the delay in disposing of the representation submitted by the petitioner and that has resulted in violation of his right guaranteed to him under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. Learned Counsel submitted that the representation is only of two pages and it could not have taken the respondent such a long time to dispose of the said representation.