DILIP KUMAR JAIN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this habeas corpus petition the petitioner has challenged the order of detention of Rikhab Chand alias Raju Bahi, dated 16th September, 1993 passed by the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, Department of Revenue, New Delhi under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") in the matter of alleged violation of detenu's rights under Articles 19, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India and Section 3 of the Act and Sections 104, 108, 110, 111 and 135 of the Customs Act, 1962.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the filing of this petition briefly stated, are that the petitioner, a resident of Ajmer, is engaged in the trade of crushing and grinding minerals. It has been contended in the petition that on 28-3-1995 the petitioner received a telephonic message at Ajmer to the effect that at about 8.00 a. m. on the said day his uncle Rikhab Chand has been arrested from his house at Palanpur by Customs Authorities. He was further informed that the Customs Authorities had taken Rikhab Chand to Jodhpur. On the following day, i.e., 29-3-1995 at about 10.00 p.m. the petitioner was able to locate his uncle in city Kotwali, Jodhpur and was allowed to meet him through a common friend at the police station. During the meeting his uncle informed the petitioner regarding the facts and circumstances leading to his arrest and detention under the Act. His uncle showed him the detention order, the grounds of detention and some documents which the Inspector C. I. D. (Crime), Palanpur had earlier handed over to Rikhab Chand. Rikhab Chand wanted to pass on the detention order and accompanying documents to the petitioner but the police authorities did not permit the same. Rikhab Chand (hereinafter referred to as the "detenu") asked the petitioner to challenge his detention by filing habeas corpus petition before this Court. The jail authorities, Central Jail, Jodhpur permitted the detenu to pass on the detention order and accompanying documents to his son Anil Kumar. The latter thereafter passed on the detention order, the grounds of detention and other documents to the petitioner. It is the detention of detenu which has been challenged by the petitioner herein on the following grounds inter alia :

(3.) It has been contended in this regard that as per the Hindi version, the detenu has been detained under the provisions of sub-clauses (i) and (iii) of sub-Section (1) of Section 3 of the Act. Thus, as per Annexure 1 the detenu was required to be detained with a view to preventing him from engaging in transporting smuggled goods and dealing in smuggled goods otherwise than by engaging in concealing and keeping smuggled goods in future, whereas according to Hindi version, Annexure 2, it was necessary to detain the detenu with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods and concealing smuggled goods/transporting/keeping the smuggled goods in future. The difference between English version and the Hindi version of the detention order is to the effect that in English version there is specific mention of the words "otherwise than by engaging in concealing and keeping smuggled goods in future", whereas as per Hindi version the words are incorporated. Thus, the difference between the two versions is to the effect "engaging in smuggling of the goods" is missing from the English version but in Hindi version it is specifically mentioned" to prevent the detenu from smuggling or concealing the smuggled goods, transporting or keeping the smuggled goods in future."