GHANSHYAM JAINARAINJI SHARMA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Secretary (Preventive Dentention) to the government of Maharashtra, Home Department and detaining authority by order dated October 16, 1989 passed in exercise of powers conferred under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 directed detention of surendra Kumar Sharma @ Surendra Ghansham Jain @ Suresh Jain with a view to preventing him from engaging in transporting, concealing and keeping smuggled goods and dealing in smuggled goods otherwise than by engaging in transporting, concealing, keeping smuggled goods. The order of detention was served on the detenu on October 27, 1989 and the grounds of detention were furnished.

(2.) THE grounds of detention, inter alia, recite that acting on specific intelligence report that a huge quantity of contraband gold was stored in room No. 81-A, Collector Colony, Chembur Camp, Bombay, the Officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Bombay immediately rushed to the premises on May 30, 1989. The room is situated on the rear side of a shed and the door was found locked. R. Pushpanathan, the owner of the premises informed the Officers that he had let out the room to one mukeshbhai since last 15 months and presently the detenu is in occupation of the room. Pushpanathan opened the door lock with a duplicate key in his possession and before the Officers entered the room, the detenu came to the room on his scooter. The detenu informed the Officers that he is in possession of the room and produced the key of the room and also the key of the cupboard lying in the room. The cupboard was opened with the key given by the detenu and on the lower shelf of the cupboard, three cloth jackets and four heavy packets were recovered. The jackets and the packets were opened and in all 380 gold bars of 10 tolas each and valued at Rs 1,02,60,000 at International rate and Rs. 1,33,00,000 at the local market rate were found. All the gold bars had foreign markings indicating that the bars were smuggled. The Officers seized the bars and statement of Pushpanathan was recorded on May 30, 1989 under Section 108 of the customs Act. The statement of the detenu was recorded on May 31, 1989 and the detenu claimed that he was employed by Manilal and Narendra jain to look after the business of gold biscuits. The detenu claimed that he agreed to store the gold biscuits for consideration of Rs. 500 per 100 gold biscuits. The residential premises of the detenu situated at Matunga were searched by the Officers in the presence of the detenu and incriminating documents were seized. On this material, the detaining authority came to the conclusion that the detenu was in possession of the premises from where smuggled gold bars were recovered and the detenu had stored the contraband gold bars at the instance of Manilal Jain and Narendra jain for monetary consideration. The detaining authority was satisfied that the detenu was transporting, concealing, keeping and dealing in smuggled gold on a very massive scale and repeatedly. The detenu was arrested and the Metropolitan Magistrate declined to grant bail and the detenu remained in custody till the date of service of order. The order of detention is under challenge at the behest of the father of the detenu.

(3.) SHRI Pradhan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the detenu, raised four contentions to challenge the legality of the order. The first submission of the learned counsel is that the detenu has studied only upto 7th standard and can only read and write Hindi and is not familiar with english language. The learned counsel urged that the detaining authority did not furnish Hindi translation of the detention order and the grounds of detention and that has prevented the detenu from making effective representation. In answer to the petition, the detaining authority has filed return affirmed on March 20, 1990 and in Paragraph 15, it is claimed that the detenu has been supplied with all the documents along with Hindi translation. In addition to the affidavit of the detaining authority, the affidavit of Mataprasad Doodhnath Pandey, Sub-Inspector of Police, attached to pcb-CID, Bombay and affirmed on March 14, 1990 is filed. The Officer claims that the detenu was served with the Hindi translation of all the documents while the order of detention was served. The Officer had personally served the order of detention and the grounds of detention on the detenu at Bombay Central Prison. The Officer further claims that not only Hindi copies of all the documents were supplied, but he personally explained to the detenu the contents of the documents in Hindi. The officer claims that the detenu signed in token of having received the Hindi copies as well as the fact that the contents were explained in Hindi. On the return filed by the detaining authority and the Police Officer, we have no hesitation in concluding that the complaint of the detenu's father that trapslation copies were not furnished is nothing but a figment of imagination. The first contention of Shri Pradhan that the detenu was not made aware of the reasons of detention and was prevented from making effective rep resentation is, therefore, required to be repelled.