RAHEEM KHAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been put in on behalf of Raheem Khan who has been detained under Sec. 3 (1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short COFEPOSA Act) vide order dt. 10. 9. 92 passed by Shri D. D. Sud, Dy. Secretary, Home (Security) Rajasthan, Jaipur.

(2.) THE detention has been called in question mainly on the ground that (i) the detention order Anx. 1 was passed after delay of nearly six months from the alle-ged seizure of the 250 foreign marked gold biscuits from a bag held by the petitioner on 20. 3. 1992, (ii) the detenue was already in custody and, therefore, there was no justification for passing the detention order, (iii) the detenue is illiterate and he was not read over and explained the grounds of detention and, therefore, he could not make effective representation; (iv) the detention order was served after a periodof 4-1/2 years and no explanation has been given for the inordinate delay caused in the service of order of detention, and (v) the detention order was passed by the Dy. Secretary to the Government whereas such power could be exercised by the Secretary to the Government. An affidavit has been filed in support of the petition.

(3.) MR. Sunil Joshi appearing on behalf of respondent no. 1 contended that the detenue did not request the jail authorities to explain the detention order and, therefore, he cannot raise this objection in these proceedings. He pointed out that the detention order as well as the grounds were recorded in Hindi and the detenue has not pleaded that he did not understand Hindi and, therefore, the detention orderis not liable to be struck down on this ground. His further contention was that the detenue chose to remain underground and he even did not appear in the case pending against him in the court of Special Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Jaipur and, therefore, it ws not possible to serve the detention order on him.