MADAN, J. - (1.) In this habeas corpus petition the petitioner has challenged the order of detention of Rikhab Chand alias Raju Bahi, dated 16th September, 1993 passed by the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, Department of Revenue, New Delhi under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") in the matter of alleged violation of detenu's rights under Articles 19, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India and Section 3 of the Act and Sections 104, 108, 110, 111 and 135 of the Customs Act, 1962.
(2.) The facts giving rise to the filing of this petition briefly stated, are that the petitioner, a resident of Ajmer, is engaged in the trade of crushing and grinding minerals. It has been contended in the petition that on 28-3-1995 the petitioner received a telephonic message at Ajmer to the effect that at about 8.00 a. m. on the said day his uncle Rikhab Chand has been arrested from his house at Palanpur by Customs Authorities. He was further informed that the Customs Authorities had taken Rikhab Chand to Jodhpur. On the following day, i.e., 29-3-1995 at about 10.00 p.m. the petitioner was able to locate his uncle in city Kotwali, Jodhpur and was allowed to meet him through a common friend at the police station. During the meeting his uncle informed the petitioner regarding the facts and circumstances leading to his arrest and detention under the Act. His uncle showed him the detention order, the grounds of detention and some documents which the Inspector C. I. D. (Crime), Palanpur had earlier handed over to Rikhab Chand. Rikhab Chand wanted to pass on the detention order and accompanying documents to the petitioner but the police authorities did not permit the same. Rikhab Chand (hereinafter referred to as the "detenu") asked the petitioner to challenge his detention by filing habeas corpus petition before this Court. The jail authorities, Central Jail, Jodhpur permitted the detenu to pass on the detention order and accompanying documents to his son Anil Kumar. The latter thereafter passed on the detention order, the grounds of detention and other documents to the petitioner. It is the detention of detenu which has been challenged by the petitioner herein on the following grounds inter alia : (a) That the order of detention has been passed in complete disregard of the statutory provisions of Section 3 of the Act, (b) That the Joint Secretary to the Government of India was not competent to pass the order of detention Annexure 1, (c) That the petitioner has reasonable apprehension that the final decision to detain the detenu under Section 3(1) of the Act was taken by higher authorities of the Central Government other than the Joint Secretary and as such the Joint Secretary was not competent to act as Detaining Authority. The Rules of Business of Government of India do not permit the decision to detain the detenu to be taken by the Joint Secretary to Government of India. (d) That the English version of the detention order Annexure 1 is at complete variance with the Hindi translation thereof contained in Annexure 2 which has resulted in gross confusion to the detenu as to whether he is required to represent against the act of actual smuggling or against the act of dealing smuggled goods ? As a result of this, the detenu has been deprived of fair opportunity in preparing effective representation against impugned order of detention, (e) That the detenu had also submitted representations to various authorities including. His Excellency the President of India, Hon'ble Prime Minister and other functionaries but the same have not been considered. As per the detention order in English, detenu has been detained with a view to prevent him from engaging in transporting smuggled goods and dealing in smuggled goods otherwise than by engaging in concealing and keeping smuggled goods in future. It has been contended in the petition that the purport of detention of the detenu as per English version is covered by sub-clauses (iii) and (iv) of sub-Section (1) of Section 3 of the Act, while on the other as per the Hindi version, Annexure 2, detenu has been detained with a view to prevent him from smuggling and from concealing, transporting and keeping smuggled goods.
(3.) It has been contended in this regard that as per the Hindi version, the detenu has been detained under the provisions of sub-clauses (i) and (iii) of sub-Section (1) of Section 3 of the Act. Thus, as per Annexure 1 the detenu was required to be detained with a view to preventing him from engaging in transporting smuggled goods and dealing in smuggled goods otherwise than by engaging in concealing and keeping smuggled goods in future, whereas according to Hindi version, Annexure 2, it was necessary to detain the detenu with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods and concealing smuggled goods/transporting/keeping the smuggled goods in future. The difference between English version and the Hindi version of the detention order is to the effect that in English version there is specific mention of the words "otherwise than by engaging in concealing and keeping smuggled goods in future", whereas as per Hindi version the words are incorporated. Thus, the difference between the two versions is to the effect "engaging in smuggling of the goods" is missing from the English version but in Hindi version it is specifically mentioned" to prevent the detenu from smuggling or concealing the smuggled goods, transporting or keeping the smuggled goods in future.";