1983 Supreme(Bom) 118
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
R.A. Jahagirdar S.N. Khatri, JJ.
Ladhaji Mavaji Jain ... Petitioner.
Versus
Union of India others ... Respondents.
Criminal Writ Petition No. 5 of 1983, decided on 11-4-1983.
Advocates appeared :
M.G. Karmali with A.M. Salik, for petitioner.
V.D. Govilkar with Miss S.G. Shah, for respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
M.R. Kotwal, Public Prosecutor, for respondents Nos. 3 and 4.
Headnote:(1) Conservation of Foreign Exchange and prevention of Smuggling Act, 1974 S.3- Detenu supplied order of det4ention in English and a Hindi translation of the grounds of detention- however grounds of detention contained a trans lated version of the detention order- Whether it can be had that the detention order was not adequately communicated to the detenu? (No) (Para 10)
(ii) COFEEPOSA, 1974 S.3- materials relied on by detaining authority to be supplied to detenu- Detaining authority did not rely on a telephone index as alleged by detent- Its non-supply does not vitiate the order of a detention (Para12)
(iii) COFEPOSA, 1974 S. 3- Typographical error in order of detention does not vitiate the order. (Para 15)
(iv) COFEPOSA 1974 S. 3- Delay is passing of order of detention after siezure of relevant materials- Delay caused as time elapsed before the necessary functionary required to examine materials assumed charged- Such delay does not improve the efficacy of the order or the subjective bans forming bans of order. (Para 13)
(v) COFEPOSA, 1974 S.3- Order of detention passed despite the detaining authority being aware that prosecution will be launched under FERA- Conviction of detaining authority on the necessity of detention unquestionable. (Para 14)
2. Annexure 'B' mentions that on 14th of June, 1982, information was received by the Bombay Zonal Office of the Directorate of Enforcement that the detenu was indulging in unauthorised purchase and sale of foreign exchange on a large scale and that he was acting as a sort of wholesale purchaser/seller on behalf of small scale foreign exchange racketeers. Paragraph 2 of the said Annexure 'B' mentions that in pursuance of the information so received, the business-cum-residential premises of the detenu were searched on 15th of June, 1982. This search yielded U.S. Dollars 12,560, Pakistani Rs. 5,000 and Indian Currency of Rs. 1,46,500. Certain documents were also seized from the said premises under a panchanama. During the course of a search, a person described in the annexure as Pyarelal Walimohammed Lakhani was seen entering the premises and on search his person the Enforcement Officer recovered U.S. Dollars 1,625, Canadian Dollars 20 and U.A.E. Dirhams 50. This fact is mentioned in Annexure 'B'.
3. Thereafter Annexure 'B' proceeds to mention the fact of a statement having been made by the detenu before the Enforcement Officer and the contents of that statement have been broadly summarised. Paragraph 4 of Annexure 'B' summarises the contents of a statement made by Pyarelal Wailmohammed Lakhani on 15th of June, 1982. In paragraph 5 it is mentioned that the detenu was arrested under section 35 of the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act. 1973 and after he was produced before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on 16th of June, 1982 he was released on bail on 23rd of June, 1982.
4. The detenu has addressed a letter dated 23rd of June, 1982 to the Deputy Director of Enforcement in Bombay complaining that he was detained on 15th of June, 1982 till he was produced in the Court on the next day and during this period of detention the Officer forced him to write a confessional statement and that the said statement was not true. This fact has been recorded in paragraph 6 of Annexure 'B'. Proceeding further, the said paragraph records that in another statement made by the detenu before the Enforcement Officer on 2nd of July, 1982, the detenu had confirmed that he had purchased an amount of U.S. Dollars 1,500 from Pyarelal Walimohammed Lakhani and that U.S. Dollars 3,800 and Pakistani Rs. 5,000 were also purchased by him, namely the detenu from one Shri Usman Pakistanwala. The Detaining Authority has dismissed the allegations contained in the letter dated 23rd June, 1982 addressed by the detenu to the Deputy Director of Enforcement, Bombay, as baseless.
5. Annexure 'B' in paragraph 7 proceeds to state in a letter dated 23rd June, 1982 addressed by Pyarelal Walimohammed Lakhani to the Deputy Director of Enforcement he was stated that his statement dated 15th of June, 1982 was obtained by the Enforcement Officer by force and that the said statement w