Mistakes in the translation of detention orders and grounds, which are serious and misleading, violate the detenu's right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, leading to the quashing of the detention order.

Headnote:
COFEPOSA ACT - DETENTION ORDER - GUJARATI VERSION - MISTAKES - ARTICLE 22(5) VIOLATION - DETENTION QUASHED: Mistakes in the Gujarati version of the detention order and grounds, which are serious and misleading, affect the detenu's right to make an effective representation, violating Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, leading to the quashing of the detention order.
Fact of the Case:

The detenu, Haresh Champakial Harde, was detained under the COFEPOSA Act for allegedly attempting to smuggle goods out of India. The detention order and grounds were served in Gujarati, the detenu's mother tongue, but contained mistakes and discrepancies compared to the English version.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the mistakes in the Gujarati version of the detention order and grounds were serious and misleading, creating confusion for the detenu about the case he had to meet and affecting his right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.
Issues: 1. Whether the mistakes in the Gujarati version of the detention order and grounds violated the detenu's right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. 2. Whether the detention order should be quashed due to the violation of Article 22(5).
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the mistakes in the Gujarati version of the detention order and grounds were not minor and went to the root of the case, as they created confusion for the detenu about the case he had to meet and affected his right to make an effective representation. This violation of Article 22(5) led to the quashing of the detention order.
Final Decision: The court quashed and set aside the impugned detention order and directed the immediate release of the detenu unless he was required in any other case.

JUDGMENT - M.M. QAZI, J.:---The petitioner is the brother-in-law of the detenu Haresh Champakial Harde, hereinafter referred to as "the detenu". By this petition, the detenu has challenged the order dared February 29, 1984, passed by the respondent No. 1 with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods, under sub-section (i) of section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. The order was served on the same day and the grounds of detention were also simultaneously formulated and supplied on the same day. The report under section 3(2) was sent to the Central Government on February 24, 1984. The respondent No. 1 referred the case to the Advisory Board on March 23, 1984. The detenu made representation on April 16, 1984, which came to be rejected on April 26, 1984. The impugned order was confirmed on April 27, 1984 and the same was communicated on April 30, 1984. The incident which gave rise to the impugned order is dated 20th December, 1983 when the Customs Officers of Air Intelligence Unit, Sahar Airport, Bombay on suspicion, intercepted in the Departure Hall, one passenger by name Rashmikant Narottamdas Ghaghda, who was holding Indian Passport No. N-059056 issued at Ahmedabad on July 4, 1978 and was in possession of one return Quantas Airways Ticket No. 081420287101 issued in his name showing routing Bombay-Singapore-Bombay and bearing one checked-in-baggage tag No. SIN 197811. When Ghaghda was questioned by the Customs Officers whether he was having anything like gold, jewellery, diamond, currency or drugs either in his baggage or on his person, he replied in the negative. Thereafter, his baggage was searched in the presence of panchas and in all 42 travellers cheques of U.S. dollars 100 each, amounting to U.S. Dollars 44200 and equivalent to Indian Rs. 43,470/- were recovered and the same were seized by the Customs Officers under a panchanama dated December 20, 1983, in the reasonable belief that they were being smuggled out of India and hence liable for confiscation under the provisions of the Customs Act.

2. The statement of Rashmikant Narottamdas Ghaghda was recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act on December 20, 1983 wherein he, inter alia, stated that film rolls, from which travellers cheques were recovered were given to him by the detenue Haresh Champaklal Harde, residing at 37, Abdul Rahman Street, Bombay. In pursuance of these statements, the residential premises of the detenu were searched on December 20, 1983. During the course of search of the said premises, the Customs Officers recovered 4 travellers cheques of U.S. dollars 500 each, 4 travellers cheques of U.S. dollars 100 each issued by the CITI Corp., New York, United State of America and 3 Singapore currency notes of 100 Singapore dollars and 3 notes of 50 Singapore dollars. In all the Custom's officers recovered 8 blank travellers cheques worth U.S. dollars 2400 and Singapore currency notes worth 450 Singapore dollars. All the above travellers cheques and Singapore dollars were seized by the Customs Officers under a panchanama dated December 20, 1983 under the reasonable belief that they were smuggled into India and hence liable for confiscation under the provisions of the Customs Act.

3. Though several grounds have been raised and pressed by Mr. Karmall and some of them do raise substantial question of law, we do not think it necessary to discuss them since, our view, the petition can be disposed of on the challenge raised by him in grounds Nos. (i) and (iv) of para 6 of the petition, which read thus :

"(1) The petitioner says and submits that in the English version of the order of detention, it is stated that it has been issued with a view to preventing the detenue from smuggling goods whereas in the Gujarati version of the said order of detention, it is stated that the same has been issued with a view to preventing the detenu from smuggling goods and thereafter a word "Lavta" has been used in the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document