HARWINDER SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts giving rise to this writ petition are that the petitioner/detenue was intercepted at the IGI Airport, New Delhi, on his arrival from Dubai and as a result of search of his baggage, 2913.500 grams of gold of 24carat purity of foreign origin valued at Rs. 11,53,746.00 (M.V.) were recovered from his possession. The statement of the petitioner/detenu was recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act wherein he stated that in his suit case there was a false cavity which was used for exporting foreign currency to Dubai on 5.1.93. He also admitted about the recovery of the said contraband gold from him. He has also admitted that he had been going abroad and was involved in smuggling activities earlier also. He was arrested and produced before the A.C.M.M., who remanded him to judicial custody. On 3.3.93 a complaint was made against him under Section 132 and 135(1) s(a) of the Customs Act. On 15.4.93 he was granted bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000 with one surety in the like amount. However, on 23.4.1993 the impugned detention order being F. No. 5/15/93/Home (P -II) was passed by the competent authority of the National Capital Territory of Delhi with a view to preventing him from smuggling 20 -Oct -10 goods in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3[l] of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act,1974.

(2.) THIS detention order has been challenged by this detenu on various grounds. The first contention is that he only understands Gurmukhi/Hindi language and that the grounds of detention were not supplied in Gurmukhi or Hindi language and therefore, he could not make an effective representation,rather he sent two representations on 28.4.93 - one addressed to the Detaining Authority and the other to the Central Government -demanding the grounds of detention in Gurmukhi or Hindi languages known to him so as to file an effective representation, but no reply was received by him. According to the learned Counsel, this amount? to violation of his fundamental right as enshrined in Article 22 of the Constitution.

(3.) THE second contention raised by the learned Counsel is that the Sponsoring Authority did not place before the Detaining Authority the most vital and material documents which could have influenced the mind of the Detaining Authority one way or the other at the time of passing of the impugned detention order, i.e. the retraction letter dated 22.1.93 and that of 1.2.93; and the bail bond dated 22.4.93.The said documents were not supplied to the detenu despite the fact that he made a specific request for the supply of the same vide his representation dated 13.5.93.