2001 (7) TMI 1209 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to detention order under Conservation of Foreign Exchange & Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 based on alleged variation in English and Hindi versions of grounds of detention.

Analysis:
The detention order passed under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange & Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 was challenged in a habeas corpus petition. The detenu, Ashwani Kumar Verma, was detained in the Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi. The Detaining Authority deemed the detention necessary to prevent future smuggling activities by the detenu. The detenu was provided with grounds of detention in both English and Hindi languages, along with information on his right to make representations against the detention to various authorities. The detenu made representations, but they were not successful in revoking the detention. The primary grounds of challenge in the writ petition were the lack of grounds for detention and alleged variations between the English and Hindi versions of the grounds of detention.

The main ground of challenge focused on the alleged variation between the English and Hindi versions of the grounds of detention. Several specific differences were highlighted, such as discrepancies in the description of events, individuals involved, and details like passport numbers and addresses. The respondents acknowledged these variations but argued that they were inconsequential and did not prejudice the detenu's ability to make an effective representation. The challenge to the detention order was primarily based on these variations and the non-examination of a witness.

The court analyzed the significance of omissions and contradictions in the context of the case. It emphasized that an omission is not a contradiction unless it contradicts what is actually stated. The court considered whether the differences between the English and Hindi versions caused confusion or jeopardized the detenu's right to make an effective representation. It concluded that the variations were substantial and created confusion, thus jeopardizing the detenu's valuable right to challenge his detention effectively.

The court noted that while some discrepancies may be minor and inconsequential, in cases like this where the variations were significant and touched upon crucial details, they could not be ignored. The court highlighted the importance of providing accurate and parallel versions of grounds of detention to ensure the detenu's constitutional and statutory rights are upheld. Ultimately, the court quashed the detention order and ordered the detenu's release unless required in another case or proceeding. The writ petition was allowed, and the detenu was granted liberty.