HUSSAIN KHALID Vs. MAHENDRA PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - By order dated August 30, 1989 passed in exercise of powers conferred under Section 3 (1) of the Conservation of Foreign exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 the join secretary to the Government of India directed detention of Abdulla Kunhi with a view to preventing him from abetting the smuggling of goods. The grounds of detention furnished to the detenu, inter alia, recite that in the night of June 20/21 1989, the Officers of Marine and prevventive Wing bombay noticed three persons disembarked from a vessel. The officers intercepted the vessel as the movements of those persons were suspicious on search of the vessel seven persons including the detenu were found and on enpquiry it transpired that the vessel was arranged for the purpose of smuggling silver ingots. The occupants of the vessel were interrogated and it was disclosed that the silver was brought from Dubai and was dumped in the sea opposite Governor's Bungalow. With the help of the Navy divers the Officers recovered 97 silver ingots valued at Rs 1 94 93 844 S the sea. The ingots were tied to a rope and were dumped in, the sea and the buoys were fleating to indicate the spot where the ingets were dumped the Statements of the detenu and his associates were recorded and they were put under arrest on June 25,1989 under Section 104 of the Customs Act the detenu was produced before the Additional Chief Metropolitan magistrate, Esplanade Bombay on June 26, 1989 and though bail order was passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate and the bail amount was reduced from time to time, the detenu remained in judicial custody till the date of passing of the order of detention. From these facts the detaining authorities were satisfied that it is necessary to issue order of detention with a view to preventing the detenu from smuggling and abetting smuggling of goods. Paragraph 14 of the grounds of defention recites

(2.) SHRI Bardey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the detenu submitted that the order of detention is required to be quashed the detenu was prevented from making effective representation order due to the failure of the authority in supplying copies of documents in anguage known to the detenu. Shri Bardey submitted that the detenu is familiar only with Malayalam in language and has studied upto II Standard and is not familiar with any other language. The learned counsel urged that though the grounds of detention recite that copies of documents and statements translated into language known to the detenu are enclosed, that statement is factually incorrect because what is supplied is only English translation of the documents and statement. The Complaint of Shri bardey is justified. The detaining authority has not cared to file return disputing the claim of the detenu inspite of service of notice. It is, therefore, obvious that the detaining authority is not in a position to deny the claim made in the petition. In case, the copies supplied to the detenu are not in the language known to the detenu then the detenu is clearly prevented from making effective representation against the order of detention and therefore, the order of detention is required to be quashed on this count.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY, petition succeeds and the order of detention is qushed and the detenu is directed to be released forthwith.