9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (6) TMI 130X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an, Additional Public Prosecutor and P. Kumaresan, ACGSC, for the Respondent. [Order per: M. Chockalingam, J.]. - Challenge is made to an order of the first respondent dated 30-10-2007, whereby an order of detention came to be passed under Sec. 3(1)(i) of the COFEPOSA Act against the husband of the petitioner namely Ameer Ali Sarpudeen. 2. The affidavit in support of the petition is perused and counter affidavit also. The order under challenge is also perused. 3. Concededly, on 27-9-2007, the Officers attached to the Air Intelligence unit, Madras Customs, who were present at the customs room situated in the departure hall of Anna International Airport, Chennai, opened and examined one hand baggage and three checked in baggage b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded to judicial custody till 12-10-2007. Further, a bail application was filed, and bail was granted in his favour on 3-10-2007, on condition to appear before the Customs, Chennai, until further orders. While the matter stood thus, the detaining authority has passed the detention order, and the same was executed. The grounds of detention and the booklet were also served on the detenue on 16-11-2007. The detenu's wife, the petitioner herein, sent a representation to the State Government and also to the Central Government, and the same were rejected. Before the Advisory Board, a representation was placed, and the same was also rejected on 28-1-2008. In such circumstances, this petition came to be filed before this Court. 4. At the time wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... supplied in English, it is found as if he was arrested on 27-9-2007, but in the Tamil version, it is mentioned as 27-7-2007; that this is another discrepancy; and that while these discrepancies were noticed, the authority should have called for an explanation but not done so. 7. In order to substantiate his contention that when the documents were given to him, it should have been given in the language known to him, and if not done, the purpose for which it was served upon him would be defeated, the learned Counsel relied on a decision of the Apex Court reported in 1981 Supreme Court Cases (CRI) 463 ( Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel v. Union of India and Others ). 8. The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Stat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ard, and he was conversant only with Tamil. Thus, it would be quite clear that he is not conversant with any other language. True it is, a copy of the order was served upon him along with the grounds under which he was detained and the Tamil version also. Once the Tamil version was given, the authority should see that it is given proper. But, in the instant case, there was no sufficient compliance of the mandatory requirements as contemplated under Article 22 of the Constitution. "Communicate" as could be seen under the said Article, is a strong one which would mean that he must be not only put on notice, but also he should have got the clear knowledge of the basic facts constituting the 'grounds' on which he is actually detained. In the ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
