AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.K. Menon, J—This writ petition arises out of the detention order dated 30th September, 2014, by which one Sedu Arif Mohammed Yusuf was detained in exercise of the powers conferred by section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Shiv Activities Act, 1974 ("COFEPOSA") read with Government Order of Home Department dated 18th December, 2014. The said detenu is detained at Nashik Road Central Prison, Nashik. The petitioner is the brother of the detenu and has filed the present petition for the life, welfare and personal liberty of the detenu.
On or about 30.9.2014, the Respondent No. 2 Detaining Authority issued a communication containing the grounds of detention of the detenu. The facts set out in the said communication are as follows : On 20.12.2013 at about 8.30 am the Emirates Flight EK 504 landed from Bahrain. The Customs Officers were keeping vigil on the incoming passengers and in the course of surveillance the officers of Air Intelligence Unit ("AIU") found a lady passenger near Conveyor belt No. 5 moving about in suspicious manner, looking very nervous. She was talking to two other male passengers, whose activities also appeared suspicious. AIU therefore kept a watch.
After the lady collected her baggage, she walked towards the baggage screening machine and opted for the green channel. After her luggage was screened the AIU intercepted her and verified her passport and found that the passenger had arrived in India on numerous occasions and had short stays on each visit. Her name was shown as Salma Karolia. On being questioned she stated that she was in business of purchasing burkhas from India and selling it in her country. On being asked whether she was carrying any gold or contraband, she replied in negative but her replies and general demeanor were unsatisfactory and she was extremely nervous. AIU then examined her baggage and noticed that on the rear side of her baggage trolley there were two metal boxes hooked onto the grill of the compartment. This alerted the AIU.
On interrogation she confessed that the boxes contained gold. She was intermittently looking towards her two male co-passengers, who had by then collected their baggage and were found waiting near the baggage claim area. On inspection of their trolleys it was noticed that they also had similar aluminium cases hooked on the rear part of the baggage trolleys. They were also intercepted. One of them was the detenu and another was Saleh Abubaker Ahmad Said. On inspection of aluminium cases they were it was found to contain two gold bars of 1 kg each.
Thus in all 12 gold bars of one kg each collectively weighing 12 kgs. were recovered from the six aluminium cases. The value of the aforesaid bars of 12 kilos was Rs.3,00,41,040/-. These gold bars were seized under the provisions of the Customs Act. The statement of Saleh Abubakar Ahmad Said was recorded in which he stated that he purchased rice and spice from Dubai and India and exports it to South Africa. He provided his addresses and contact numbers in Dubai and South Africa. He admitted of carrying gold bars and stated that six aluminium rectangular cases concealing 12 bars of gold were handed over to him by one Mr. Shaukat of South Africa at Dubai Airport. Thereafter he was to handover two aluminium rectangular cases to Ms.Karolia and two aluminium cases to the detenu.
The statement of the detenu was also recorded. The detenu was accused of offences punishable under sections 135 (1)(a) and 135(1)(b) read with 135 (1)(d)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 for his involvement in smuggling 12 kilos of gold bars into India along with associates. He was produced on 21st December, 2013 before 8th Court, Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Esplanade, Mumbai and was remanded till 3.1.2014. He has retracted from the statement on 20.12.2013 before the Court on 21.12.2013. The Department filed a rebuttal on 24th December, 2013. Further statements of the detenu were recorded in the jail premises between 3.1.2014 and 6.1.2014.
The detenu filed an application under section 437 of the Cr.P.C. and the Court released him on bail on personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/-and solvent surety of the like amount on 6.1.2014. The grounds of detention further state that the detenu in connivance with Mr. Shaukat had smuggled gold into India and attempted to evade customs duty. He had made nine visits abroad since January 2013 and was aware that bringing gold to India without declaring it and paying customs duty is an offence He has committed offence by violating section 77 of the Customs Act. Furthermore existing foreign trade policy also had been violated. The order further recorded that the detenu admitted that he had been promised Rs.20,000/-per trip for carrying goods which was to be paid after delivering the same in India. That he carried the gold and attempted to evade customs duty despite knowing the rules and regulations of the customs.
After having considered rebuttal to the Detaining Authority issued on 18.6.2014 i.e. six months after rebuttal of retraction, the Detaining Authority observed that considering the gravity of offence and well organised manner in which it was done it is imperative that he should be detained under the provisions of section 3(1)(i) of COFEPOSA with a view to prevent him from smuggling the goods in future. It is material to note that while passing the order the Detaining Authority relied on the 23 documents, some of them illegible listed in Annexure "A". The copies of which are said to have been provided to the detenu.
In the present petition, the detention has been challenged on the various grounds, however, Mrs. Ansari, learned Advocate for the petitioner has laid emphasis on ground no.(iv) which refers the detenu statement dated 20.12.2013 to the following effect :
"I have studied upto 7th standard in Gujrati Medium from Gujarati Prathamik Shala (Government School), Hathuran, Surat, Gujrat. I can read write and understand Gujrati. I can speak and understand Hindi, Gujrati language."
Learned Advocate submits that from the statement of the detenu it became evident that he was not able to read and understand English. The Detaining Authority has supplied to him various documents. A copy of the order of detention, grounds of detention and list of documents in English language were supplied to detenu though he is unable to read or understand English. The respondents were duty bound to provide the translations of the same to the detenu in the language known to him. It is contended that the failure to submit translated versions has resulted in violation of the detenu''s right to make an effective representation at the earliest opportunity and therefore, it is contended that the respondents have violated Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. Mrs. Ansari therefore, contends that the detention order is liable to be set aside and the detenu be set at liberty forthwith on this ground alone.
It is not out of place to mention that another contention of Mrs. Ansari is that the Detaining Authority has not considered the fact that the detenu''s passport has been retained by the Sponsoring Authority and in absence of the passport, it would not be possible for the detenu to carry on any smuggling activity. The order of detention was therefore also challenged on the basis that this show non application of mind and the subjective satisfaction has been vitiated.
On behalf of the Sponsoring Authority, an affidavit of Shri Veersinha M. Patil. Deputy Secretary, Home Department Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai dated 8th January, 2015 has been filed. An affidavit of Dr.Kiran Kumar Karlapu, Assistant Commissioner of Customs has been filed on behalf of the Customs dated 9.1.2015. In the affidavit of Shri Veersinha Patil it is contended that since the Detaining Authority who has issued the detention order has been transferred on deputation to the Government of India, the same is affirmed by him on the basis of records and files of the department and facts within his knowledge which are believed to be true. We need not refer to various statements under this affidavit save and except in response to ground No.(iv) in paragraph 5 in view of the fact that this is the real ground that is being pressed into service by the Advocate for the petitioner. The affidavit in reply deals with this ground in paragraph 5.4. In paragraph 6 it is stated that the translated copies of the documents were served on the detenu along with the detention order. This does not appear to be a correct statement, in view of the fact that perusal of the detention order or the grounds of detention itself does not record that any such translated copies were provided.
In fact paragraph 28, 29 and 30 of the grounds only mention that the documents relied upon have been provided to the detenu. In paragraph 6 of the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the Detaining Authority it is stated thus :
"Further the Executing Authority i.e. the Superintendent of Police, Surat District, Gujarat was informed vide letter dated 30.09.2014 to take necessary measures to ensure that the contents of the Detention Order and the ground of detention are explained to the detenu in language known to him. I say that the Executing Authority was also requested to inform the detenu that for all legal purposes the English version of the order and other documents will be valid. Hence she relied upon the documents based on which the grounds of detention were formulated were supplied to the detenu which was necessary and at no point of time the detenu right was prejudiced to make effective representation."
The affidavit of Dr.Kiran Kumar Karlapu of behalf of the Customs does not throw any light on this aspect since in paragraph 6 it is clearly stated that he had no comments to offer vis-a-vis the contents of paragraph 5 (iv).
We have heard Mrs. Ansari learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and learned AGP appearing for the Respondents at some length. It is contended by Mrs. Ansari, in our view correctly, that furnishing translations of the order of detention and grounds of detention in Gujarati language was imperative in order to afford the detenu a reasonable opportunity of making an effective representation. Mrs. Ansari also relied upon a decision in case of Smt. Raziya Umar Bakshi Vs. Union of India and Others, AIR 1980 SC 1751 : (1980) SCC(Cri) 846 : (1980) 3 SCR 1398 : (1980) 12 UJ 866 in which the Apex Court held that the service of the grounds of detention on the detenu is a very precious constitutional right and where the grounds are couched in a language which is not known to the detenu, unless the contents of the grounds are fully explained and translated to the detenu, it will tantamount to not serving the grounds of detention to the detenu and would thus vitiate the detention ex facie. So also in case of Hadibandhu Das Vs. District Magistrate and Another, AIR 1969 SC 43 : (1969) 35 CLT 1 : (1969) CriLJ 274 : (1969) 1 SCR 227 , it was clearly held that oral explanation of the grounds of detention order without supplying the detenu with translation in the script and language which the detenu understood amounted to denial of right of being made aware of the grounds.
The Apex Court in yet another case of Powanammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Another, AIR 1999 SC 618 : (1999) CriLJ 831 : (1999) 1 CTC 347 : (1999) 1 JT 31 : (1999) 1 SCALE 49 : (1999) 2 SCC 413 : (1999) 1 SCR 104 : (1999) AIRSCW 218 : (1999) 10 Supreme 450 observed as under :
" 8. The law relating to preventive detention has been crystalized and the principles are well neigh settled. The amplitude of the safeguard embodied in Art.22(5) extends not merely to oral explanation of the grounds of detention and the material in support thereof in the language which is understandable to the detente. Failure to do so would amount to denial of the right of being communicated the grounds and of being afforded the opportunity of making a representation against the order."
In the present case also no contemporaneous document has been produced to show that the Executing Authority or the Detaining Authority had provided the order of detention and grounds of detention in the language known to the detenu, namely, Gujarati.
The present case apart from the bare statement in the affidavit, there is no contemporaneous record to show that such grounds and order were translated and provided to the detenu. The non supply of the translated copies of the order of detention and grounds of detention vitiates the order of detention.
Ld. Advocate then relied upon the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in case of Rajesh Gulati Vs. Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi and Another, AIR 2002 SC 3094 : (2002) CriLJ 4299 : (2002) 4 Crimes 86 : (2002) 83 ECC 281 : (2002) ECR 918 : (2002) 6 JT 331 : (2002) 6 SCALE 142 : (2002) 7 SCC 129 : (2002) 2 UJ 1292 : (2002) AIRSCW 3563 : (2002) 6 Supreme 37 in which the Apex Court had observed that the law of preventive detention must be meticulously followed, substantially and procedurally. In that case, the Detaining Authority had noted that the Appellant''s passport was with the Customs and yet he said that Appellant was likely to travel clandestinely for the purpose of smuggling. It is obvious that despite the absence of passport, the Appellant could not continue his smuggling activities. Such circumstances are sufficient to vitiate or invalidate the impugned detention order. In the instant case also the passport of the detenu was with the Sponsoring Authority and the order of detention was purportedly made for preventing the detenu from carrying out smuggling activities. In the light of fact that the passport was not in his possession, there was no possibility of his travelling out of country for the purpose of indulging smuggling.
The aspect of detenu being deprived of his passport was considered in a leading case to which reference was made by the learned counsel for the detenu. It is the case of Gimik Piotr Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, AIR 2010 SC 924 : (2010) CriLJ 877 : (2009) 14 JT 273 : (2009) 13 SCALE 706 : (2010) 1 SCC 609 : (2009) 15 SCR 889 in which it is clearly laid down that the order of preventive detention could not have been passed with a view to prevent a detenu from indulging in smuggling in the cases where the Customs Department has retained passport and the likelihood of detenu indulging in smuggling activities was effectively foreclosed. As observed in the case of Rajesh Gulati (supra), the contention that despite the absence of a passport, the Appellant could or would be able to continue the smuggling activities in this case, is based on no material but was a piece of pure speculation. In the case of Gimik Piotr (supra) it was held that merely because a person cannot otherwise survive in the country, is no basis to conclude that a person will again resort to smuggling activities, or abetting such activities by staying in the country. There is a higher standard of proof required in these cases involving the life and liberty of a person. This aspect has also been considered time and again in various other judgments including of this Court.
On behalf of the Respondents Mr. Yagnik, learned APP contended that the detenu ought not to succeed on these ground of challenge since the contents of the documents were already explained to the detenu. He relied upon the statement in the affidavit in reply to effect that the translated version had been supplied. After the matter was partly heard on 13th January, 2015, we allowed the learned AGP to place a further affidavit on record explaining how and when the translated copies were furnished to the detenu. Accordingly, he also referred to the further affidavit of the Executing Authority Mr. Pradeep Shejul Superintendent of Police, Surat dated 22nd January, 2015, who states in capacity of the Executing Authority, he has affirmed the affidavit on the basis of record and files and facts within his knowledge.
With reference to paragraph 5(iv) of the Petition, he states that he executed the order of detention upon the detenu after the same was received by his office on 8.10.2014 and that the grounds of detention and the Annexure "A" and "B" in respect of present detenu, which were enclosed in duplicate, were required to be explained to the detenu in the language known to the detenu and his acknowledgment obtained thereon. He further states that in accordance with instructions he has executed the order upon the detenu on 10.10.2014 and on the docket of detention order, an endorsement is made by the detenu in Gujarati and in addition the statement of the detenu was recorded by the Police Inspector B.C. Thakur all of which shows that along with documents total number in page 1 to 116 are in Gujarati language and same was received by the detenu.
Surprisingly, the affidavit that was filed in this Petition refers to Annexures which pertain to the acknowledgment in Gujarati by one Salma Karolia and not by the detenu. In fact the order of detention and the statement annexed are of said Salma Karolia. We are, therefore, not convinced that the aforesaid affidavit and contentions taken up therein are correct. The statement is not supported by any contemporaneous evidence. Pages 143 and 144 of the Affidavit did not even pertain to the present detenu but to Salma Karolia, who is co-accused and who is also detained and whose detention has been challenged in Writ Petition No. 4294 of 2014. Moreover, the affidavit records that translated copies of the document relied upon in Gujarati language was served but not the order of detention and grounds.
In the case of Rama Dhondu Borade Vs. V.K. Saraf, Commissioner of Police and Others, AIR 1989 SC 1861 : (1989) 2 Crimes 653 : (1990) 25 ECC 50 : (1989) 24 ECR 7 : (1989) 2 JT 579 : (1989) 1 SCALE 1581 : (1989) 3 SCC 173 : (1989) 3 SCR 191 the Hon''ble Supreme Court observed as follows in paragraph 19 :
" 19. The propositions deducible from the various reported decisions of this Court can be stated thus:
The detenu has an independent constitutional right to make his representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. Correspondingly, there is a constitutional mandate commanding the concerned authority to whom the detenu forwards his representation questioning the correctness of the detention order clamped upon him and requesting for his release, to consider the said representation within reasonable dispatch and to dispose the same as expeditiously as possible. This constitutional requirement must be satisfied with respect but if this constitutional imperative is observed in breach, it would amount to negation of the constitutional obligation rendering the continued detention constitutionally impermissible and illegal, since such a breach would defeat the very concept of liberty--the highly cherished right--which is enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution".
It is to be noted that Article 22(5) enjoins upon the State to satisfy the aforesaid constitutional requirement. If this constitutional imperative is observed in the breach, it would amount to negation of the constitutional right thereby rendering continued detention impermissible. The Supreme Court highlighted the fact that the representation should be expeditiously decided with due promptitude and without avoidable delay.
In the circumstances given the facts of the case at hand we are of the view that the order of detention cannot be sustained as it violates mandate of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, especially since the detenu was deprived of prompt opportunity of making a representation against the detention. Hence, we pass the following order :
i) Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) which reads thus :
"(a) That this Hon''ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the said order of detention bearing 37(1)/SPL3(A) dated 30.09.2014 and be pleased to direct that the detenu Sedu Arif Mohamed Yusuf be set at liberty".
(ii) All concerned to act upon the authenticated copy of the operative part of this order.