TMI Blog1984 (1) TMI 180X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etained by virtue of orders passed regarding each one of them on May 7, 1983 for their detention without trial by invoking Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. They were both detained with a view to preventing them from acting in any manner prejudicial to the augmentation of foreign exchange and as the appropriate authority was of the view that it was necessary to make orders in regard to them under Section 3(1) of the aforesaid Act. Grounds of detention, also dated May, 7, 1983, in English and a translation in Urdu of the said grounds of detention were served on the two persons in Tihar Jail. According to these grounds of detention, these two persons were allegedly indulging ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Revenue) at New Delhi and the other of Shri B.S. Jarial, working as Assistant Superintendent in Central Jail, Tihar. According to these additional affidavits, in the Ministry/ Department while processing the detention case there was insistence to put up Urdu translations of documents which were proposed to be relied upon by the detaining authority. Urdu translations of those were also supplied to the detenus, Shri Mukhopadhyay s affidavit throws no light on whether the grounds of detention were explained to the detenus in the language understood by the detenus. Shri Jarial s affidavit makes an interesting reading. He states that grounds of detention were served on the detenus in Jail on May 11, 1983 in his presence. He goes on to say Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adequately in a representation. Merely translating the grounds of detention if at all once for the detenus would not be good enough. He further says that even otherwise the requirements have not been fulfilled as no affidavit of the person who actually translated the grounds of detention to the detenu has been filed. He relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Smt. Raziya Umar Bakshi v. Union of India and others - AIR 1980 U.G. 1751, explained to the detenus in Peshto language. This according to him is sufficient compliance with the requirements of Article 22(5). 5. We do not agree. It was for the detaining authority to have satisfied us that the detenus knew Urdu. His ipse dixit cannot be accepted when admittedly the detenus are Af ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
