DASARATHABHAI RAMNIK SHAH Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition for writ of Habeas Corpus filed by the detenu Dasarathbhai Ramnik Shah himself seeking to quash the order of detention bearing No. 1048/General A/92-1 dated 20-8-1992 passed under S. 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act') by the Secretary, General Administration Department (Political), Government of Andhra Pradesh and for consequential release from detention in Central Prison, Hyderabad.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are as follows : On 30-7-1992, the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (Customs), Hyderabad noticed a jeep parked near the Parade Grounds, Secunderabad in which the detenu and another Rohidas were sitting. One Hiralal who was sitting on a scooter was found talking with the occupants of the jeep. On seeing the officials of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, the scooterist fled away and on search of the jeep, silver bars weighing Kgs. 350.055 gms. valued about Rupees 26,25,412.50 were recovered. On 31-7-92 the detenu gave a statement in Hindi under S. 108 of the Customs Act before the Asst. Director, D.R.I., Hyderabad to the effect that he resides at Bombay, he is driver by profession, that he can read and understand Hindi and that the silver bars are to be handed over to Pavan Jewellers, Secunderabad which is owned by Jagadish and Hiralal. The detenu also admitted in his statement that the silver bars were smuggled, that he has so far taken away the silver bars thrice from Bombay to Bangalore and twice to Bombay and that for each trip he was being paid Rs. 1,000.00. The other occupant Rohidas gave a similar statement. The detenu and other occupant Rohidas were arrested on 31-7-92 under S. 104 of the Customs Act and were remanded to judicial custody till 14-8-92 by the Special Judge for Economic Offences, Hyderabad and later the remand was extended to 24-8-92. The learned Judge rejected the bail application filed on behalf of the detenu by his order dt. 10-8-92. On 14-8-92 a telegram was sent to the Customs authorities, Hyderabad by Mrs. S. A. Bdhamale, Advocate, requesting them to be present in the High Court of Bombay on 20-8-92 for hearing of the anticipatory bail. In the said telegram, only the registration number of the vehicle was referred and the name of the person who is moving the anticipatory bail was not stated. The customs officials wrote letter to the Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh on 19-8-92 enclosing a copy of the telegram and informed him that no copy of the petition for anticipatory bail was received by them.

(3.) All these facts were brought to the notice of the detaining authority by the Assistant Director, D.R.I., Hyderabad. The detaining authority thereupon passed the detention order on 20-8-1992 directing the detention of the petitioner under section 3(1)(iii) of the Act "with a view to prevent him effectively from further engaging in transporting of smuggled goods". This order was served on the detenu on 9-9-92 along with copies of the translated versions in Gujarathi and Hindi. The said detention order took note of the fact that the detenu was under judicial custody and that his being enlarged on bail in near future could not be overruled. The grounds of detention were served on the detenu on 12-9-1992 along with copies of translated versions both in Hindi and Gujarathi. There is no categorical assertion in the affidavit that the person has revived only Gujarathi version and has not received the Hindi version. In para-20 of the affidavit it is averred that Hindi versions of the detention order and grounds of detention do not bear the seal and signature of the detaining authority. From this it follows that Hindi version also was served in addition to Gujarathi version. The counter-affidavit also is silent on this fact. However, after looking into records, we find that there are both Hindi and Gujarathi versions and during the arguments, the learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that both Gujarathi and Hindi versions were served on the detenu. The detenu sent a representation in Hindi on 21-10-92 to the Government of Andhra Pradesh requesting to revoke the order of detention. It was rejected on 2-11-1992 and the same was served on the detenu on 11-11-92.