1986 (10) TMI 324 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the detention order under Section 3(1)(iii) of the COFEPOSA Act.
2. Accuracy of the Marathi translation of the grounds of detention.
3. Accuracy of the Marathi translation of the declaration under Section 9(1) of the COFEPOSA Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Detention Order under Section 3(1)(iii) of the COFEPOSA Act:

The petitioner challenged the detention order dated 9th June 1986, issued under Section 3(1)(ii) and (iii) of the COFEPOSA Act, arguing that it did not convey the purpose of detention accurately. The order stated that the detenu was detained "with a view to preventing him from keeping and concealing smuggled goods," omitting the word "engaging." The court found this omission significant, as the word "engaging" implies habitual activity, not a stray act. The court held that the omission altered the intent of the legislation, making the detention order invalid under Clause (iii) of Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act.

2. Accuracy of the Marathi Translation of the Grounds of Detention:

The petitioner argued that the Marathi translation of the grounds of detention, particularly in Para 36, did not convey the correct meaning of the original English text. The court noted that the translation used the term "jakat chori cha mal" for "smuggled goods," which could mean tax-evaded goods, not necessarily smuggled goods. Additionally, the translation omitted the word "engaged" and did not properly translate "abetting." The court held that these inaccuracies prevented the detenu from making an effective representation, thereby invalidating the detention order.

3. Accuracy of the Marathi Translation of the Declaration under Section 9(1) of the COFEPOSA Act:

The petitioner also contended that the Marathi translation of the declaration under Section 9(1) was not faithful to the original. The court found that the translation failed to convey the word "engaged," which is crucial for understanding the intent of the declaration. This failure rendered the translation ineffective, further supporting the petitioner's claim that the detenu could not make an effective representation.

Conclusion:

The court quashed the detention order dated 9th June 1986 and directed that the detenu be released forthwith. The judgment emphasized the importance of faithfully conveying the intent of the legislation and the grounds of detention to the detenu to ensure their constitutional right to make an effective representation.