SATISH BHARDWAJ Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the vali- dity of the detention order dated 5th of March, 1988 passed under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (as amended) by the Joint Secretary to the Government Mr. K.L. Verma. This order was passed with a view to preventing the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the augmentation of foreign exchange. This in turn was based on an incident dated 8th of January, 1988 when some documents and cash were recovered from the residence of the petitioner pursuant to some information given by one Jamalu-Ud-Din Rao apprehended on 7th January, 1988 by the Rajasthan police in Jaipur. The documents seized from the residence of the petitioner were explained by him in his statement recorded under Section 40 of the Foreign Exchange Regu- lation Act and it was found on investigation that the petitioner was indulging in what is commonly known as Hawala transactions. On the date when the petitioner was taken into detention, he was in custody.

(2.) Mr. Arora, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has mainly urged two grounds which, according to him, vitiate the order of detention. It is urged that one of the documents relied upon by the detaining authority was an English translation of the statement of Ashok Kumar and that along with the grounds of detention what was delivered to the detenu was a Hindi translation of the statement of Ashok Kumar and half of his statement in English which actually comprised of six pages, out of which only three pages were delivered to the petitioner. The contention is that the document relied upon by the detaining authority was in English and the detenu was entitled to a full copy of the aforesaid statement in English. It is not denied that subsequently the document in English was supplied to the detenu on his asking. I am not in agreement with the contention of Mr. Arora. All that is required is that the material on which the grounds are formulated must also be deli- vered to the detenu along with the grounds and that too in the language known to the detenu. There is no dispute that the only language known to the detenu is Hindi and a copy of this statement of Ashok Kumar was deli- vered to the detenu in Hindi. One can understand the force in the conten- tion if it was urged by the detenu that the Hindi transcript of the statement of Ashok Kumar was not the correct translation of the English script. In that event what the conclusions could be I need not speculate. In my view, there- fore, as far as this contention of the petitioner is concerned, it is without any force and is unsustainable.

(3.) Next Mr. Arora urged that his representation has not been consi- dered by the detaining authority and the Central Government expeditiously and thee is unexplained delay in the consideration of the representation of the detenu by both the authorities, that is to say, the detaining authority and the Central Government. In ground No. 4 of his petition the detenu has clearly stated that he made a representation both to the detaining authority and the Central Government on 30th of March, 1988 and he was communicated the result thereof through the Superintendent Jail on 29th of April, 1988. Mr. Arora urges that the burden is upon the detaining authority and the Central Government to show that his representation was dealt with conti- nuously till its final disposal and the result thereof was communicated to him thereafter without any loss of time.