Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1987 (2) TMI 184

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... uggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the COFEPOSA Act ) made on July 21, 1986 by the Administrator of the Union 1 crritory of Delhi. The detenu is of Ladakhi origin and has been residing at Delhi for some time. The grounds served on him along with the order of detention stated that on March 18, 1986, the Customs Authorities on the basis of previous information in their possession intercepted the vehicle in which the detenu was travelling and inquired of him if he was in possession of contraband or smuggled gold. He answered in the affirmative and disclosed that he was carrying smuggled gold packet in a piece of cloth. At the Customs House where he was taken, 36 pieces of gold with foreign markings valued at a little mor .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ing to him on the 7th and the 9th of October, 1986. His detention has been confirmed. 4. In response to the rule, the respondents have made a return and in the affidavit justification for the order has been given. Rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner. Mr. Jethmalani appearing in support of the writ petition has advanced three submissions and they are : (1) The detenu has been denied a fair and adequate opportunity of representing against his detention inasmuch as the grounds of detention and copies of the documents accompanying the grounds were not in English language and copies thereof have been furnished in Tibetan language while the detenu knew only Ladakhi; and copies of all the material documents shown in Annexure C were .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... dents should be read as under Letter dated 19.4.1986 of the petitioner addressed to the Collector of Customs, Customs House New Delhi together with a list of persons along with the reply dated 11.6.1986 of the Collector of Customs to the petitioner was placed before the detaining authority. The list of documents does not mention the letter dated 11.6.1986 and the respondents learned counsel has ultimately accepted the position that a copy of that document was not supplied to the detenu. 9. In the later affidavit filed by Shri Tripathi on behalf of respondents it has again been stated that : That similarly in the said referred counter-affidavit, sub-para (ii) of page 5 reads as under :- Letter dated 28.4.1986 from the petition .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed that when the allegation was that there was no application of mind in the making of the preventive detention, the return should have come either from the detaining authority or a person who was directly connected with the making of the order and not by Shri Tripathi who filed the affidavit on the basis of the record of the case. 12. The detenu has contended that he understands only Ladakhi language but he can hardly write, read or converse in that language. Admittedly his wife who is the petitioner before us in a Tibetan refugee and apparently is conversant with both Tibetan as also English. It is the case of the respondents in the affidavit of Shri Tripathi filed on January 13, 1987 that : It is thus apparent that the detaining aut .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... anguage which he understands. The fact that the detenu s wife knew the language in which the grounds were framed does not satisfy the legal requirement. Reliance was placed by the learned Additional Solicitor General on a decision of this Court in Prakash Chandra Mehta v. Commissioner and Secretary, Government of Kerala Ors., - 1985 (3) SCR 679 in support of his contention that unless the detenue was able to establish prejudice on account of the fact that the grounds of detention and the documents accompanying the grounds were not in a language known to the detenu the order would not be vitiated. There is no clear indication of the test of prejudice being applied in that case. On the facts relevant before the Court, a conclusion was reach .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates