SUSHILA BHOORMAL JAIN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who is the wife of detenu Bhoormal Jain, is challenging the detention order issued under section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. The allegations against the detenu on the basis of which the detention order was passed are : The detenu is a dealer in silver, on receipt of the information that the detenu was dealing or smuggling silver out of India, a watch was kept on the premises of the detenu viz. Sameer Jewellers. On 22-2-1983 a motor-car No. MMB 2703 driven by the driver-Iqbal came to the said premises. Silver ingots were loaded and Iqbal started taking away the said silver. He started driving the car, however, the Customs Officials intercepted. Iqbal attempted to escape. It was not possible. He therefore abandoned the car and started running away, however, he was caught. Seven ingots of silver were found in the dicky while there were three ingots under the left side of the front seat. The total weight of the silver was over 301 kgs. and the value was Rs. 9,85,775/-. The said silver was not accompanied by any transfer voucher. The said silver was attached. Enquiries were made and it was found that the silver was purchased from one Prakash Premchand and that the markings on the silver ingots were obliterated to some extent in an attempt to suppress the fact that these ingots were so purchased. According to the detenu he gave that silver to a refinery known as M/s. Balkrishna Vilesh & Co. for making small pieces popularly known as chorsas and that thereafter he delivered those chorsas to one Pratapram of Bhavani Traders. It is alleged that this version of the detenu was false and that in fact he has not given the silver (purchased from Prakash Premchand) to the refinery for preparing chorsas, on the contrary he wanted to smuggle the silver out of India and in that process he put the silver in the motor-car with a view to make the necessary transport. During the investigation by the Customs Officials the material was collected to show that only paper entries were made and formal challans were prepared showing the delivery of the silver by the detenu to the refinery known as M/s. Balkrishna Vilesh & Co. and that there were also similar paper entries and preparation of formal challans showing the delivery of the chorsas to the detenu.

(2.) With these allegations the impugned order dated 27-6-1983 for the detention of the detenu was passed by the Government. Along with the order the grounds of detention were formulated vide annexure C. It is not disputed that these grounds in English as also the material that was placed before the Detaining Authority was supplied to the detenu. In addition, the necessary translation in Hindi of all these documents was also supplied.

(3.) In this petition a number of contentions have been raised for challenging the detention order. However, all those contentions have not been urged before us. Only some of the contentions have been pressed before us and hence we would consider those contentions or grounds that are urged by Shri Karmali on behalf of the petitioner. The first contention of Shri Karmali is that the detentio became vitiated on account of the delay on the part of the concerned authority in considering the representation made by the detenu. For understanding this contention it will be necessary to make a mention of a few facts. The detention order was served on 7-7-1983. The detenu made a representation on 3-8-1983 and the representation has been considered and rejected on 6-9-1983. Thus the decision on the representation was taken after about 34 days. Shri Karmali relied upon a few decisions of the Supreme Court. For example, he drew our attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in case of (Kamla v. State of Maharashtra) reported in A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 814. The case was decided on 6-1-1981. In this case the representation of the detenu was decided after about a month. In para 2 of the judgment the Supreme Court observed as follows :---