FARZANA HAJI SUMAR Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition, the petitioner, by name, Farzana Haji Sumar, challenges the detention order dated 30. 06. 2006, passed by the first respondent herein detaining her husband, Haji Sumar under Section 3 (1) (i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (Central Act 52 of 1974) (in short "cofeposa" ).

(2.) HEARD the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for first respondent and learned Additional Central Government standing counsel for second respondent.

(3.) AT the foremost, Mr. B. Kumar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that inasmuch as the crucial and important document, viz. , "certificate of Origin" has not been furnished in full to the detenu, there is no proper communication of grounds. According to him, the document contains authentication by Sri Lankan Embassy and since the whole backside of the document has not been supplied to the detenu, the detention order is vitiated. Elaborating the above contention, the learned senior counsel submitted that the grounds of detention show that the "certificate of Origin" has been signed by the Managing Director of M/s. Spiceco International (Pvt.) Ltd. , and the detenu arranged for signature of the officials in the Department of Commerce, Sri Lanka and for stamp impression in the said certificate. According to him, though grave allegation is made against the detenu that he manipulated the documents, including the "certificate of Origin", yet, a portion of the certificate which contains the signature of the officials of the Department of Commerce as well as stamp impression of that country has been omitted to be supplied. He further submitted that this has seriously disabled the detenu from understanding the various allegations that are made against him. He also contended that if what is supplied to the detenu alone has been placed before and considered by the Detaining Authority, then it would be a serious non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority. He next contended that the detenu knows only Gujarati to read and write and he does not know Tamil or English to read, though he has smattering knowledge in Tamil and English to speak and understand, if spoken to. He further contended that even though the grounds of detention are given in Gujarati, almost all the documents, which are in English have not been translated and supplied to the detenu in Gujarati and non-supply of all or any one of the documents is clearly an infringement of right under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India and the detention order is void. He further contended that translation of the grounds in Gujarati is also defective, since most of the words are not translated at all. He finally submitted that the representation sent to the Government has not been disposed of and the pre-detention representation sent to Ministry of Law has also not been disposed of by the Government, which vitiates the detention order.