BADRUDDIN BASHAR KHAN Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Criminal Writ Petition No. 2502 of 2006 seeks to challenge the order of detention dated 2.5.2006 bearing No. F. No. 673/14/2005-CUS, VIII, issued by Sh. R.K. Gupta, Joint Secretary to the Government of India, specially empowered under Section 3 (1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (as amended) who was satisfied with respect to the person named as Sadruddin Basar Khan, S/o Shri Basar Lal Khan, R/o Parsik Hill, Sector 26, Plot No, 93, Navi Mumbai, that with a view to preventing him from abetting the smuggling of goods as well as dealing in smuggled goods otherwise than by engaging in transporting or concealing or keeping smuggled goods in future, it was necessary in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 (1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange & Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (as amended) to direct that the said Sadruddin Basar Khan be detained and kept in custody in the Mumbai Central Prison, Mumbai.

(2.) Brief facts of the case as set out in the writ petition are as under:-

(3.) The main ground which was pressed before us was that the petitioner is an illiterate man who can barely sign in English but was served detention order in English which was not explained to him in Hindi, the language known to him. This has violated his right to make an effective representation at the earliest opportunity. The order of detention is, therefore, unconstitutional, illegal and bad. Another ground is that the Advisory Board while affording a hearing to the detenu did not allow the detenu to examine witnesses and that the Advisory Board violated the principles of natural justice which have gravely prejudiced the hearing before the Board. The detention order is bad on this account as well. Yet another ground of challenge is that at the time of execution of the impugned order of detention. on 29.9.2006, the detenu was in judicial custody. It was incumbent upon the Detaining Authority to consider afresh whether it was necessary to continue with the execution of the detention order in spite of inordinate delay which consideration were most mechanical and is a case of non-application of mind which vitiates the order of detention.