AJAY KUMAR GOEL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner through the present writ petition challenges the legality and the validity of the detention order dated August 29, 1991 passed under Section 3 (1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange & Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as ' the COFEPOSA Act') with a view to prevnting him from smuggling into India contraband goods.

(2.) Brief facts of the pressent petition are as under: that the petitioner is a citizen of India and is a resident of 20/5, Rana Pratap Bagh, Delhi. The officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence were keeping a close watch on the activities of the petitioner on account of suspicion and as such apprehended him on August 8, 1991 while he was driving a Maruti Car on the aforesaid date. On search of the said car 190 gold biscuits of foreign markings were recovered from underneath of the seat of the driver. The petitioner on being questioned failed to produce any evidence for the lawful possession of the abovesaid gold biscuits. Consequently, they were seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner was arrested under Section 104 of the Customs Act and was produced before the court. He was remanded lo judicial custody for the period ending August 29.1991. The impugned order of detention was served on the petitioner on August 29,1991. The said order is illegal, invalid and is liable to be quashed, inter alia, on the following grounds.

(3.) The petitioner is a matriculate. He has studied through a Hindi Medium School. He, as such, understands only Hindi language. He cannot read and write any other language. The detaining authority curiously enough without taking into consideration the above fact supplied all the documents, including the grounds of detention only in English language and in no other language. It is thus virtually tantamount to non-supply of the material and the documents relied upon by the detaining authority. It is a clear violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. ' It makes the above detention order illegal and void. The petitioner vide his representation dated September 6,1991 apprised the detaining authority of the abovesaid fact and requested them to supply to him all the documents relied upon by them in Hindi language, but to no avail. Thus, the detention order is liable to be set aside on this ground also.