Decided on November 27,2002

M. Kudubdeen Appellant
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

Cited Judgements :-



- (1.)THIS petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking quashing of order of detention dtd. 9/5/2002 passed under S. 3(1)(i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 whereby the petitioner has been ordered to be detained with a view to prevent him from smuggling goods in future.
(2.)THOUGH various grounds have been taken in the writ petition challenging the order of detention and continued detention of the petitioner, Mr. K.K. Mani, learned counsel for the petitioner, however, pressed only two grounds.
The first ground pressed by the learned counsel is about the non- supply of documents in the language known to the petitioner which, it is claimed, has adversely affected the detenu's valuable right of making effective representation under Art. 22(5) of the Constitution of India. The detenu claims to have studied up to fifth standard. He does not know how to read, write and understand English and claims to know only the Tamil language. The documents whereof the English (sic Tamil) translation has not been supplied to the detenu is a customs declaration. According to the facts noticed in the ground of detention, the petitioner was apprehended at Chennai Airport with 140 mobile phones and certain gold ornaments. The total value of the goods was approximately Rs. 7,29,000. In the customs declaration the value of the goods was mentioned as Rs. 30,000. The details about Rs. 30,000 are noticed on the reverse of the document in respect of which the complaint has been made that the English (sic Tamil) translation has not been supplied. It is apparent from a look at the document, namely, the customs declaration that the reverse side of it is predominantly in the Tamil language. It is written by the petitioner. The grievance made is in respect of the front portion of the customs declaration. That is in English. It is contended that the Tamil translation of the front portion has not been supplied. It is a relied-upon document.

(3.)A perusal of the said document (front portion) shows that the material particulars therein are the name of the passenger, flight number, numbers of the packages, checked baggage, hand baggage, total value of the dutiable goods being imported and signature. All these particulars have been filled in that document. The name, flight number and number of packages have been mentioned in the document in question. Against the value of the goods tick mark has been made. The document has been signed by the detenu. In the face of the above details given by the detenu in the aforesaid declaration, the contention that the translation thereof has not been supplied particularly keeping in view that the reverse is in the Tamil language, is without any substance. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention that non-supply of the English (sic Tamil) translation of the document has resulted in depriving the petitioner from making an effective representation under Art. 22(5) of the Constitution of India. The first contention is therefore rejected.

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