NAINARAM ADAJI CHOWDARY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition filed by Nainaram Adaji Choudary questioning his detention in pursuance of order dated 26-2-1988. passed by the Principal Secretary to Government of Andhra Pradesh.

(2.) The order of detention was passed by the competent authority in exercise of the powers under Section 3 (1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 on the sstisfaction of the detaining authority that it is necessary to detain him in order to prevent him effectively from engaging in transporting, keeping and concealing smuggled goods. The grounds which are in English, inter alia, stated that the detenu has come to notice for habitually indulging in transportation of smuggled gold. By way of facts in the grounds it is stated that pursuant to reliable information the detenu was intercepted along with his accomplice Vinod Dagud Barve on 27-7-1987 while these two were alighting from auto at the petrol bunk of M/s. N. K. Agencies, Door No. 5-4-65 M. G. Road, Secunderabad, on suspicion that they were clandestinely transporting smuggled gold in contravention of the rules. On search, both of them admitted that they were carrying five gold bars with foreign marks concealed in their respective rectums and voluntarily ejected them and after cleaning them, they were handed over to the authorities under a panchanama. The gold bars were of 24 carat purity with foreign markings each weighing 10 tolas. On demand, both of them failed to produce any valid authorisation.

(3.) We are not referring to the other material on the basis of which the satisfaction was arrived at since that would not be necessary, nor are we referring to the various submissions made except the one taken on behalf of the detenu in the additional affidavit dated 7th of December, 1988. It is stated in this affidavit that the detenu belongs to a poor family in Sapara village, Pali District in Rajasthan. He had studied upto 5th class and failed his sixth class and discontinued studies and English was not taught to him. The plea taken is that the order of detention is distinct from the grounds of detention that the order of detention was not communicated in a language known to the detenu, namely, Hindi. The order of detention was given only in English language and therefore, there is no communication of the order of detention and this infringement has made the order of detention void on the fifth day, that is, on service of the grounds.