KUBICDARUSZ Vs. UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(SC)-1990-1-29
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: CALCUTTA)
Decided on January 18,1990

KUBICDARUSZ Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

HARBHAJAN SINGH JAURA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-1991-12-64] [REFERRED]
ASHQUEEN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-1990-4-16] [REFERRED TO]
IRUDHIA IRUDAYANATHAN VS. STATE OF TAMILNADU [LAWS(MAD)-1994-3-95] [REFERRED TO]
IRUDHI VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-1993-3-74] [REFERRED TO]
W RANJITH THAMEL VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2000-10-86] [REFERRED TO]
YOUTH WELFARE FEDERATION VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(APH)-1996-10-11] [REFERRED TO]
AKHTARIBEGUM ABDUL GANI SHAIKH VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2003-3-34] [REFERRED TO]
M RAJENDER KUMAR VS. GREATER HYDERABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [LAWS(APH)-2012-2-7] [REFERRED TO]
WAHEED AHMAD GOJRI VS. UNION TERRITORY OF J & K [LAWS(J&K)-2021-7-15] [REFERRED TO]
JOSE ANTONIO VS. SUCHARITA MAHAPATRA [LAWS(CAL)-2019-11-58] [REFERRED TO]
M SAINABA VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2002-7-15] [REFERRED TO]
AKHTARI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-2008-12-114] [REFERRED TO]
BANKA SNEHA SHEELA VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(SC)-2021-8-1] [REFERRED TO]
BANNE SINGH @ PAHALWAN VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2014-1-26] [REFERRED TO]
MOOSA HUSEIN SANGHAR VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(SC)-1992-12-36] [RELIED ON]
CHAIRMAN RAILWAY BOARD VS. CHANDRIMA DAS [LAWS(SC)-2000-1-77] [RELIED]
M MARIMUTHU VS. JOINT SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-1991-8-92] [REFERRED TO]
"A" VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-11-131] [REFERRED TO]
THIYAM NINGOL SALAM ONGBI RAMANAI DEVI VS. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE [LAWS(GAU)-1999-7-14] [REFERRED TO]
AGISILAOS DEMETRIADES VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2022-3-170] [REFERRED TO]
NINGOMBAM LEIMA DEVI VS. STATE OF MANIPUR [LAWS(GAU)-2012-4-7] [REFERRED TO]
DAKU DEVI VS. STATE OF TAMILNADU [LAWS(MAD)-2004-9-89] [REFERRED TO]
SYED AASIYA INDRABI VS. STATE OF J&K [LAWS(J&K)-2008-12-53] [REFERRED TO]
HARBIR CHAWLA VS. MAHENDRA PRASAD [LAWS(CAL)-1993-2-28] [REFERRED TO]
ASHUTOSH DWIVEDI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-2009-1-193] [REFERRED TO]
NIMMY SHETTY VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2021-6-24] [REFERRED TO]
ISHFAQ SHAFI KANNA VS. STATE OF J&K [LAWS(J&K)-2018-2-50] [REFERRED TO]
ARJUNSINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MPH)-1993-4-15] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. CHAYA GHOSHAL [LAWS(SC)-2004-12-44] [REFERRED TO]
GAZI KHAN VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER [LAWS(RAJ)-1995-3-83] [REFERRED TO]
JASVINDER KAUR VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2022-2-19] [REFERRED TO]
CHITIKESI SHOBA RANI W/O CHITIKESI SADASIVUDU VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(APH)-2016-1-12] [REFERRED TO]
BABULA ALIAS AJIT PAL VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-1994-10-14] [REFERRED TO]
BRIJ MOHAN SHARMA VS. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE CUTTACK [LAWS(ORI)-1991-2-20] [REFERRED TO]
SUMHADI BIN MAORAIS INDONESIAN NATIONAL VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GJH)-1991-12-11] [REFERRED TO]
K RAVIRIDRANATHAN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-1991-3-22] [REFERRED TO]
P.K. MADHAVAN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-1991-3-67] [REFERRED TO]
ARIFA AMANULLAH VS. JOINT SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE NEW DELHI [LAWS(MAD)-1995-3-103] [REFERRED TO]
PAPPU ALIAS JETHANAND LAXMICHAND TOLANI VS. C D SINGH [LAWS(BOM)-1997-11-123] [REFERRED TO (PARA 6). 2.]
PEOPLES UNION FOR HUMAN RIGHTS VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GAU)-1991-3-3] [REFERRED TO]
P MUNIRATHNAM VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2008-6-16] [REFERRED TO]
B RAMANNAMMA VS. STATE [LAWS(CAL)-1993-2-7] [REFERRED TO]
RUMANA BEGUM VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(SC)-1992-8-35] [REFERRED TO]
MALIYAKKAL ABDUL AZEEZ VS. ASSISTANT COLLECTOR KERALA [LAWS(SC)-2003-1-118] [REFERRED TO]
MAYA LILARAM ASUDANI W/O LILARAM ARJANDAS ASUDANI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GJH)-2012-2-103] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRAKUMAR VERMA VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-1993-1-16] [REFERRED TO]
PRATIC KUMAR SEN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-1995-7-27] [REFERRED TO]
MALAYALAM VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-1994-4-56] [REFERRED TO]
BRIJESH KISHORSINH CHAUHAN & ANR VS. STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS [LAWS(GJH)-2013-8-158] [REFERRED TO]
AJAY SINGH ALIAS PAPPU GOVARDHAN SINGH VS. D SHIVANANDHAN COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [LAWS(BOM)-2007-3-58] [REFERRED TO]
KALI PRASAD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-2021-8-126] [REFERRED TO]
IN RE : U.P. RASHTRIYA CHINI MILL ADHIKARI PARISHAD AND 4 OTHERS VS. STATE OF U.P. AND 12 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-1994-9-111] [REFERRED TO]
SOHINIDEVI MOHANLAL JAIN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-1995-7-49] [REFERRED TO]
SHARAD DADU VS. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE BHOPAL [LAWS(MPH)-1990-5-8] [REFERRED TO]
PRASAD BHOLA ALIAS DURGA PRASAD BHOLA VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-1996-11-22] [REFERRED TO]
BASANTA KUMAR NAIK AND ATAL BAL @ BHOLA VS. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND ANR. [LAWS(ORI)-1992-1-31] [REFERRED TO]
RAJAN VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-1991-10-99] [REFERRED TO]
MALATHI BAI VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(APH)-2016-1-46] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. YUMNAM ANAND M ALIAS BOCHA ALIAS KORA ALIAS SURAJ [LAWS(SC)-2007-4-69] [REFERRED TO]
DILIP KUMAR JAIN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(RAJ)-1995-10-17] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. PAUL MANICKAM [LAWS(SC)-2003-10-72] [REFERRED TO]
M. GUNASUNDARI VS. JOINT SECRETARY (COFEPOSA),GOVERNMENT OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2014-8-188] [REFERRED TO]
S DHANASEKARAN VS. COMMANDANT 42 BN [LAWS(MAD)-2011-1-76] [REFERRED TO]
SAFI MOHAMMED VS. P G RAMRAKHIANI [LAWS(GJH)-1998-12-8] [REFERRED]
SARAS KUMAR MOHANTY VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-1995-5-1] [REFERRED TO]
SANAT ALIAS SANTHA MISHRA ALIAS SANAT KUMAR MISHRA VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-1997-9-37] [REFERRED TO]
TAOREM ONGBI KENIKA DEVI VS. STATE OF MANIPUR [LAWS(GAU)-2012-11-1] [REFERRED TO]
S ONGBI SHEITYABHAMA DEVI VS. STATE OF MANIPUR [LAWS(GAU)-1991-12-5] [REFERRED TO]
DHARAM PAL YADAV VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-1991-12-37] [REFERRED TO]
JAMAT ALI MONDAL ALIAS MEGO ALIAS TAPAN DAS VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-2000-3-48] [REFERRED TO]
VRUJLAL NATVARLAL RAYKUNDALIYA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2007-11-27] [REFERRED TO]
GOVINDBHAI DIPAJI SONI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-1991-8-21] [REFERRED TO]
ADAM ALI @ ADIL ALI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GAU)-2021-4-58] [REFERRED TO]
KALPANA PAL VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2010-8-176] [REFERRED TO]
PATHOOTY VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2000-1-14] [REFERRED]
SOLOMON CASTRO VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-1999-9-24] [REFERRED]
TAOREM ONGBI KENIKA DEVI VS. STATE OF MANIPUR & ORS. [LAWS(GAU)-2012-6-155] [REFERRED TO]
S.RESHMI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KER)-2016-1-96] [REFERRED TO]
RAMZAN KHAN VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2000-4-23] [REFFERED TO : AIR 1990 SC 605 (REL. ON) 3,5]
DILIP RATILAL DHAKAN VS. UNION OF INDIA THRO JOINT SECRETARY MINISTRY OF FINANCE [LAWS(GJH)-2012-2-100] [REFERRED TO]
S. NARESH VS. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) [LAWS(MAD)-1991-8-96] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. SNEHA KHEMKA [LAWS(SC)-2004-1-20] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH KUMAR UPADHAYAYA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2006-3-143] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD JAMIL VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-1999-6-9] [REFERRED TO]
SAHIDUL ISLAM MONDAL VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2015-5-309] [REFERRED TO]
SUMITA DEY BHATTACHARYA VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2015-1-256] [REFERRED TO]
DELHI HIGH COURT LEGAL SERVICES COMMITTEE VS. UOI [LAWS(DLH)-2014-8-152] [REFERRED TO]
DELHI HIGH COURT LEGAL SERVICES COMMITTEE VS. UOI [LAWS(DLH)-2014-8-152] [REFERRED TO]
ANNA DURAI AND DILLI VS. A N ROY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [LAWS(BOM)-2006-10-115] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

K. N. Saikia, J. - (1.)Mr. Kubic Dariusz, a Polish national, holding a Polish passport arriving in Calcutta by air from Singapore via Bangkok was arrested on 29-4-1989 under Section 104 of the Customs Act, by the officers of the Customs Department attached to Calcutta Airport, on the ground that he was carrying in his possession foreign gold weighing about 70 tolas. On 30-4-1989, he was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barasat who remanded him to jail custody till 15th May, 1989. He was interrogated by Intelligence Officer when he made, corrected and signed his statements in English. His application for bail was rejected by the Cheif Judicial Magistrate. While still in custody, he was served with the impugned detention order dated 16-5-1989 passed under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the COFEPOSA Act, along with the grounds of detention. On 24-5-1989 he was granted bail by the Calcutta High Court but the same could not be availed of because of the detention order which is now being challenged in this petition.
(2.)The detention order was passed with a view to preventing the detenu from smuggling goods; and it stated that the detaining authority, namely, the Additional Secretary to the Government of India in the department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, was satisfied that the detenu was likely to smuggle goods into and through Calcutta Airport which was an area highly vulnerable to smuggling as defined in Explanation 1 to Section 9(1) of the COFEPOSA Act. In the grounds of detention it was stated, inter alia, that arriving at Calcutta by Thai Airways the detenu opted for the Green Channel meant for the passengers not having any dutiable and/or prohibited goods for customs clearance and proceeded towards the exist gate; that he declared that he did not have any gold with him, but on search 7 gold bars weighing 70 tolas valued approximately at Rs. 2,71,728/- deftly concealed between the inner soles of the left and right sports shoes in specially made cavities were recovered; that in his voluntary statement before the customs officer he admitted the recovery; that he had been able to learn English as he was with some Engilish people during the period of 2nd Kedardham Expedition or Kedarnath dham Expedition in the year 1987 and he was also learning English when he was in France in the year 1985; that scrutiny of his passport revealed that he visited Delhi on 6-2-1989 and 21-2-1989, Trichi on 22-4-1989 and Calcutta on 29-4-1989 that he admitted to have been in India in 1986, 1987 and 1988; and that on chemical tests the sample was found to be containing 99..9% of gold.
(3.)Mr. Shankar Ghosh, the learned counsel for the petitioner assails the detention order primarily on two grounds, namely, that the detenu knew only the Polish language and did not know English wherefore he was unable to read and be informed of the grounds of detention given in English and he was not given the grounds of detention in a language understood by him so as to enable him to defend himself; and that the representation submitted by him was not considered, acted upon or replied to at all by the detaining authority wherefore the detention order was liable to be quashed as violative of Art. 22(5) of the Constitution of India.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.