VIJAY KUMAR DHARNA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In pursuance of the detention order dated July 13, 1989, passed by respondent No. 2 under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short 'COFEPOSA Act'), the petitioner has been detained with a view to preventing him from abetting the smuggling of goods. In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has challenged the said detention order.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has pleaded that the petitioner, who knows only Punjabi language in Gurmukhi script, has been supplied copies of the detention order and the grounds of detention in that language which are at variance with the detention order and the grounds of detention supplied to the detenu in English language and thus, the 'afeguard provided under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India stands violated.

(3.) The order of detention has been made, as mentioned above, with a view to preventing the detenu from abetting the smuggling of goods. The ground- of detention give out all the necessary facts pertaining to the prejudicial activity of the petitioner and the prejudicial activities of his co-detenus. In the grounds of detention framed in English language and the order of detention issued in English language, there is nothing wrong. If the facts mentioned in 'the grounds of detention in the Punjabi language are kept in view, again there is no variance between the facts recorded therein from what has been recorded in the grounds of detention in English language. There is only variation between the two with regard to the inference drawn by the detaining authority while in the English language grounds of detention the inference drawn is that the petitioner has been indulging in abetting the smuggling of goods whereas in the Punjabi translation it has been incorporated that besides abetting the smuggling of goods, the detenu has been indulging in concealment, transportation of the smuggled goods as well. Similarly in the Punjabi translation of the order of detention, besides mentioning the abetting the smuggling of goods it is also- communicated that the petitioner was induling in smuggling of goods