BHAWARLAL MISRIMAL JAIN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY order dated November 16, 1989 passed Joint secretary to the Government of India, in exercfse of powers conferred under Section 3 (1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, Amritlal Mangalchand Mehta was detained with a view to preventing him from engaging in transporting smuggled goods. The grounds of detention recite that on August 26, 1989, the detenu was intercepted while riding a scootor and on search 10 foreiga marked gold bars were recovered. The statement of detenu was recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act and the detenu stated that he was transporting smuggled gold bars at the behest of one Trilokchand Chopra. The detaining authority, on this material, came to the conclusion that the detenu was engaged in transporting smuggled goods and unless prevented is likely to indulge in such activities. The order of detention is under challenge at the instance of a relation of the detenu.

(2.) SHRI Karmali, learned counsel appearing on bshalf of the detenu, submitted that the detenu was prevented from making effective representation against the order of detention in view of the Hindi translation of the order of detention supplied to the detenu. The English version of the order of detention recites that the order is passed with a view to preventing the detenu from engaging or transporting smuggled goods. The Hindi version of the detention order, on the other hand, recites that the order is issued with a view to preventing the detenu from transporting smuggled goods. Thus, in the Hindi version of the order of detention, the translation of the crucial words "engaging" is missing. It is now well-settled that the legislature has used the expression "engaging" with a purpose and the connotation of the word "engaging" indicates that the person is transporting smuggled goods in a regular course of business. A solitary event of transporting smuggled goods would not attract the expression "engaging" in transportation of goods. The failure of the detaining authority to translate the crucial word "engaging" in Hindi version of the detention order which was served on the detenu has resulted into preventing the detenu from making an effective representation. The order of detention is, therefore, violative of Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India and is required to be struck down.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY, rule is made absolute and the order of detention is quashed and the detenu is ordered to be released forthwith.