9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Challenge to detention under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. Allegation of show cause notice not placed before detaining authority. Discrepancy between English and Gujarati versions of grounds of detention.
In this case, the petitioner, who is the brother of a detained individual under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, sought a writ of habeas corpus. The detenu had been detained twice, first on June 29, 1984, and then on August 14, 1984, with the latter detention being challenged in the present petition. The challenge was based on various grounds, one of which was the failure to place a show cause notice issued to the detenu before the detaining authority. The respondents admitted this failure but argued that the notice was only relevant for adjudication proceedings under the Customs Act and not for preventive detention. However, the court disagreed, citing previous judgments and emphasizing the importance of considering all relevant documents before making a detention decision. The court noted that the show cause notice, which contained allegations related to smuggling, was a crucial document that should have been considered by the detaining authority. The failure to place this document before the authority rendered the satisfaction required for detention under the Act as vitiated. The court highlighted that the detaining authority was not aware of the precise case of the Customs Department, which could have influenced the detention decision. As a result, the impugned detention order was held to be flawed and was struck down, directing the immediate release of the detenu unless detained under a valid order of any court or authority. Another issue raised was the discrepancy between the English and Gujarati versions of the grounds of detention supplied to the detenu. The petitioner argued that this variance could impact the detenu's right of representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution. While the respondents cited a Supreme Court case to argue that the Gujarati version should be considered correct, the court noted the language differences and the translation process involved. However, the court did not delve further into this issue after making observations on the potential impact of the variance. Ultimately, the court concluded that the detention order was invalid due to the failure to consider all relevant documents, thereby ordering the release of the detenu. A formal order was directed to be provided to the petitioner's counsel.
|
