NARINDER SINGH SARAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a habeas corpus petition.

(2.) The petitioner alleges that he is a citizen of Afghanistan and lives in Kabul. He alleges that he does not know English and that his knowledge of Hindi is limited; his mother tongue is a variety of Punjabi spoken in Kabul.

(3.) On 24th November, 1979 the petitioner arrived at the airport at Bombay by a flight from Bangkok. His baggage was searched by the Customs Authorities and 65 electronic watched and one calculator were discovered concealed therein. These articles were confiscated and a panchanama of the seizure was made. After the seizure the Customs Officer on duty recorded the petitioner's statement under section 108 of the Sea Customs Act. On the same day he was produced before a Magistrate and was remanded. On 27th November, 1979 he applied for bail, the application was granted and the petitioner was released on bail on 28th November, 1979. The complaint filed against the petitioner by the Customs Authorities is pending. After release from bail the petitioner alleges that he has stayed in Delhi and has done nothing which would lead the respondents to suspect that he was engaged in smuggling activities. On 17th June, 1980 the petitioner had come to Bombay to attend the trial. Upon the adjournment thereof an officer of the respondent removed him from the Court. The petitioner alleges that the officer did not disclose to him his identity. He was served in the office of that office with the impugned order of detention and the grounds thereof. In the affidavit made by that officer, a Sub-Inspector of Police Chavan, it is said that between the court building and his office the petitioner and he talked in Hindi and that after service of the order of detention and the grounds thereof, Chavan explained the same to the petitioner in Hindi. The order of detention is dated 3rd April, 1980. It states that the petitioner is detained under the Conversation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, (now referred to as "COFEPOSA") with a view to prevent him from smuggling. The grounds of detention make reference to the fact of the said seizure and recite the petitioner's statement under Section 108 of the Sea Customs Act. On 8th July, 1980 the petitioner's Advocate wrote to the respondents asking that the petitioner be furnished with copies of the documents relied upon in passing the order of detention. The respondents replied to the petitioners advocate on 24th July, 1960 that they had relied upon the said panchanama and the petitioner's statement under Section 108 of the Sea Customs Act. A copy of the said statement was enclosed with the letter. In the meantime, on 17th July, 1980, the petitioner received intimation that the Advisory Board constituted under COFEPOSA were to review his detention and that he could make a representation and submit the same through the Jail Superintendent. On 24th July, 1980 the petitioner submitted such a representation. He alleges that, being detained in the Yeroda prison, he was not able to get in touch with his advocate in Bombay; that the representation was drafted by a fellow prisoner; and that when he made the representation a copy of his statement under Section 108 of the Sea Customs Act had not been received by him. This is not denied. On 21st August, 1980 the Advisory Board met. On 22nd September, 1980 the petitioner received an intimation that the Advisory Board had turned down his representation. He thereafter filed his petition.