1985 (4) TMI 280 - SC - Customs

Whether there are relevant materials on which a reasonable belief or conviction could have been entertained by the detaining authority on the grounds mentioned in section 3(1) of the said Act? Held that - In this case there was evidence before the authorities concerned that 60 gold biscuits of foreign origin without any explanation of their importation were found in the possession of the father-that is undisputed. Venilal could not give any explanation of their being in there possession. These were smuggled. Secondly , there was evidence in view of the subsequent other facts independent of the confessions of the father and the sons and the daughter that the father was in contact with persons who were buying smuggled gold from him and buying at high prices. Their telephone number were found and they could be identified from the papers seized during the search at his hotel room. In the background of the facts and circumstances of this case the procedural safeguards have been complied with as far as practicable. There are no merits in the fancied grievances of the detenus. Appeal dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Communication of Grounds of Detention
2. Retraction of Statements
3. Delay in Serving Grounds of Detention
4. Representation before the Advisory Board
5. Independent Consideration by Detaining Authority

Analysis of Judgment:

1. Communication of Grounds of Detention:
The petitioners argued that the grounds of detention were not communicated in a language understood by the detenus, particularly Venilal Mehta, who claimed to understand only Gujarati. The grounds were initially provided in English, and later in Hindi, but some annexures were in Malayalam. The court held that the Constitution requires that grounds must be communicated effectively, which means in a language understood by the detenu. Despite Venilal Mehta's claim, the court found that he had sufficient understanding of English or Hindi, as evidenced by his signed mercy petition in English and his constant company with his English-speaking daughter and son. Thus, the court concluded that there was no violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution.

2. Retraction of Statements:
The petitioners contended that the retraction of statements made under Section 108 of the Customs Act was not considered by the detaining authority, indicating a lack of application of mind. The court acknowledged that the retraction was not noted in the detention order but emphasized that the detention order was based on multiple grounds, including the seizure of 60 gold biscuits and other independent evidence. The court held that even if the retracted statements were ignored, there were sufficient grounds to justify the detention under Section 3(1) of the Act.

3. Delay in Serving Grounds of Detention:
The petitioners argued that there was a delay in serving the grounds of detention beyond the prescribed period of five days without exceptional circumstances or reasons recorded in writing. The court found that the grounds were served within the stipulated time, and the delay in providing the Hindi translation did not invalidate the detention, as the grounds were effectively communicated in English, which Venilal Mehta understood.

4. Representation before the Advisory Board:
The petitioners claimed that they were not allowed proper representation before the Advisory Board. The court noted that the services of Dr. S.C. Purohit and Dr. Mrs. Purohit were available to translate the statements of the detenu to the Advisory Board. The court found that the detenus were given adequate opportunity to be represented and that their representations were duly considered by the Advisory Board.

5. Independent Consideration by Detaining Authority:
The petitioners alleged that the detaining authority did not independently consider their representations but mechanically followed the Advisory Board's opinion. The court held that the detaining authority had sufficient material to justify the detention and had not merely followed the Advisory Board's opinion. The court emphasized that the detention was based on multiple grounds, including the seizure of gold biscuits and the connections with other individuals involved in smuggling activities.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petitions, finding no merit in the arguments presented by the petitioners. The procedural safeguards were complied with, and the detention orders were justified based on the evidence and grounds provided. The court upheld the validity of the detention orders under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974.

← Previous Next →