The grounds of detention must be communicated in a language understood by the detenu to enable effective representation, and translation discrepancies between the order of detention and the grounds of detention do not necessarily render the detention illegal.

SHIVASHANKAR BHAT, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner, who is a detenu in Central prison, Bangalore, has challenged his detention. He is detained, as per an Order dated 7-11-1988 made under Sect ion 3 (1) of the Conservation of foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short 'the Act'), since 17-11-1988.

( 2 ) THE grounds of detention furnished to the petitioner refer to Section 3 (1) (iii) of the Act, as the one under which the impugned order was made. The impugned order stated that the Detaining authority was satisfied that the petitioner was to be detained with a view to "preventing him from engaging in transporting, concealing and keeping smuggled goods".

( 3 ) THE facts in brief are that on 6-10-1988, Officers of the Department of Revenue Intelligence who had credible information, chased the car driven by the petitioner and stopped it; the car was coming towards Bangalore, from Tumkur side. One Dilip Vimalchand was also found in the car.

( 4 ) THE occupants of the car were searched and thereafter they along with the car were brought to the office of the Department. The search of the car revealed two packets concealed in the door panel board of the front side right door in which, on examination, 50 gold biscuits bearing foreign markings were found. These gold biscuits, valued at Rs. 19 lakhs, on an examination by an expert gold dealer, were opined to be of foreign origin and consequently they were seized under a mahazar.

( 5 ) THE statements of the petitioner and Dilip Vimalchand were recorded under Section 108 of the customs Act. The statement of two persons, - Vasantharaj and Prlthviraj (whose names were furnished by the petitioner and Dilip Vimalchand) - were also recorded on the same day. Thereafter, other proceedings continued. On the basis of the materials collected, the first respondent made the impugned order.

( 6 ) SINCE the petitioner has no knowledge of English language, all the relevant papers (such as the order of detention, grounds of detention and other documents) were translated into Kannada (language known to the petitioner) and were furnished to him.

( 7 ) MR. Kumar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, advanced six contentions in support of the petition:

. The petitioner was not given adequate opportunity to make his representation against the order of detention because (a) the Kannada version of the order of detention furnished to him does not convey the same meaning as the English version, in as much as, the word 'keeping' found in the english version, is not found in the Kannada version; (b) one of the documents relied upon by the Detaining Authority, is a summons issued to the petitioner, translated copy of which has not been furnished to the petitioner at all.

. In making the order of detention, reliance is placed on the statements of Vasantharaj and prithviraj; however, their retractions were not placed before the Detaining Authority and considered by it.

. Retraction letter of the detenu was not forwarded to the Concerned Authority and therefore the procedure followed was unfair.

IV. The assistance of the lawyer sought by the detenu to prepare his representation was denied to him.

V. Grounds of detention say that "retractions" were considered, copies of which were not furnished to the detenu.

. Representations of the detenu were not considered by the Competent Authority, but by the detaining Authority who had no such power to consider them. RE. CONTENTION NO. I

( 8 ) IT is contended that the petitioner was furnished with the translated copies of the order of detention, and the grounds in support of the said order, etc. , in Kannada. The order of detention passed in English states that the order was made under Section 3 (1) of the Act "with a view to preventing him from engaging in transporting, 'concealing and Keeping smuggled goods" (underlining is ours ). But the Kannada translation of the order states that the order was made with a view to prevent him from engaging in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document