IN RE : MANICK SAHA Vs. STATE
LAWS(CAL)-1996-4-28
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on April 10,1996

In Re : Manick Saha Appellant
VERSUS
STATE Respondents




JUDGEMENT

SATYABRATA SINHA, J. - (1.)SRI Manick Saha, brother -in -law of the detenu, Samir Kumar Roy has filed this writ application for issuance of a Writ of or in the nature of Habeas Corpus quashing an order of detention dated 17.1 1.1995 passed by the respondent No. 1 purported to be in terms of section 3 (l) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act).
(2.)THE detenu, admittedly, has read upto Class VIII. He does not know English language. The grounds of detention and other documents on the basis whereof the respondent No. 1 arrived at his subjective satisfaction to detain the detenu, had been supplied to the detenu.
(3.)MR . Sen appearing on behalf of the petitioner, inter alia, has raised a short question in support of this application. Learned counsel submitted that from a persual of the Bengali version of the order of detention the grounds as also the statements made in the affidavit in opposition, it would appear that the impugned order of detention suffers from the vice of total non -application of mind.
Mr. Ghosal appearing on behalf of the respondents however, submitted that the entire order of detentions has to be read as a whole and unless it is shown that the translated order of detention as also the grounds had prejudiced the detenu, the same would be inconsequential. Learned counsel in support of his aforementioned contention relied upon a decision in the case of Prabhakar Mahadeo v. State of Goa, reported in 1990 Cr. LJ 1610 and in the case of A. Alangarasamy v. State of Tamil Nadu and Anr. reported in AIR 1987 SC 1725, our attention has also been drawn to section 5 A of the said Act. From the order of detention dated 17.11.1995 as contained in Annexure 'A' to the writ application, it appears that the said order was passed with a view to prevent the detenu from dealing in smuggled goods otherwise than by engaging in trasporting and concealing and keeping smuggled goods and also preventing him from engaging in transporting and concealing and keeping smuggled goods in future. The Bengali translation, however, reads thus : [Matter omitted being in regional language - Ed.]

;


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