IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, JJ.
Jasvinder Kaur – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India through its Secretary and Others – Respondents
W.P. (Crl) No. 1388 of 2021, Crl. M.A. No. 11699 of 2021
Decided On : 18-02-2022
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 22(5) and 226 - Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 - Customs Act - Section 108 - Section 3(1) - Detention order - Quash of - Smuggling of drones, goods, cigarettes - Seeking direction in nature of habeas corpus for production of her son, who petitioner alleges, has been illegally detained by respondents - A specific intelligence input is stated to have been received by Assistant Commissioner, at Indira Gandhi International Airport (IGI Airport) about smuggling of drones, goods, cigarettes and certain other items in commercial quantity by six passengers on different flights - Pursuant to this intelligence input, customs officers along with officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) approached Exit Gate of Arrival Hall, IGI Airport to intercept eight passengers, including petitioner herself; and upon conducting search of their baggage, certain objectionable goods were found in baggage of two persons.
Finding of the Court:
Interpreting the scope and operation of this fundamental right, Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down that ‘communication’ within the meaning of Article 22(5), means imparting to detenu sufficient knowledge of grounds on which a detention order has been made; so that detenu is in a position to effectively make a representation against order - Merely because a detenu is able to sign or write a few words in English or any other language, does not mean that detenu is ‘conversant with the language’ since detenu may yet not be able to effectively understand the contents of the grounds of detention and the relied-upon documents, to be able to make an effective representation against the detention order - Communicating the grounds of detention effectively and fully to a detenu implies that grounds must be furnished to him in a language which the detenu understands; and if that entails translation of grounds to such language, then that is part of the Constitutional mandate - Since High Court had not returned a finding that detenu knew enough English, High Court had committed an error in holding that only because English was official language of State of Maharashtra, supplying the grounds of detention in English language was sufficient compliance of mandate of Article 22(5) - Impugned detention order falls foul of the constitutional mandate contained in Article 22(5) of Constitution as interpreted by Hon’ble Supreme Court in various decisions.
Result: Habeas Corpus Petition allowed.
JUDGMENT :
ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J.
1. The petitioner Jasvinder Kaur has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) seeking a direction in the nature of habeas corpus for the production of her son Harmeet Singh, who the petitioner alleges, has been illegally detained by the respondents. After amendment of the array of party-respondents, the respondents in the proceedings are the Union of India, through its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue (Central Economic Intelligence Bureau); Joint Secretary (COFEPOSA) and The Commissioner of Customs, Terminal-3, IGI Airport, New Delhi, which parties are hereinafter collectively referred to as the Ministry or the respondents.
2. The petitioner further seeks quashing of detention order bearing No. PD-12002/05/2020-COFEPOSA dated 05.06.2020 issued under section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA Act) by the Joint Secretary COFEPOSA (the “impugned detention order”) under which the petitioner’s son is in preventive detention with The Superintendent, Tihar Jail, New Delhi, which detention order also stands confirmed by the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance vide order dated 11.08.2021.
3. As per the record, the Ministry’s case against the petitioner’s son is this:
(ii) Subsequently, on information allegedly given by Gagan Jot Singh, on the intervening night of 01.02.2019 and 02.02.2019, at around 1:30 a.m. the petitioner’s son, Harmeet Singh who arrived at IGI Airport from Dubai via Kuwait Airways-Flight No. KU-381 was also apprehended for carrying contraband items and goods, along with three other persons, by name Sumit Verma, Sourabh Chopra and Amarjeet Singh.
(iii) Notice under section 102 of the Customs Act, 1962 (Customs Act) was served upon Harmeet Singh on 02.02.2019; officers of the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance recorded his statement under section 108 of the Customs Act, which is stated to have been self-incriminating in nature. Importantly, it is the case of the respondents that the statement of Harmeet Singh was typed in the English language and was stated to have been explained to him in the vernacular by an interpreter.
(iv) As per the impugned detention order, upon search of Harmeet Singh’s bags the following items were found:
(i) 238 dandas of Benson and Hedges Cigarettes.
(ii) Boarding Pass dated 01.02.2019 for Flight No. KU-381 (Kuwait to Delhi) with Seat No. 2H.
(iii) Indian Passport No. Z5317414 issued on 16.01.2019.
(iv) One Vivo Y53 mobile with Vodafone Sim No. 8860253525.
(v) UAE Dirham 300/-
(vi) 02 bottles of Chivas Regal 12-YO whiskey.
(vii) Personal effects, old and used.
(v) The Ministry says that several other articles and goods, including drones and cameras were recovered from the other persons apprehended along with Harmeet Singh and that the total value of the goods seized and confiscated under sections 110 and 111 of the Customs Act is stated to be about Rs. 1,09,74,500/- (Rupees One Crore Nine Lacs Seventy-Four Thousand Five Hundred Only).
(vi) Harmeet Singh was arrested on 03.02.2019, whereupon he was produced before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate,
Chaju Ram vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir
Hadibandhu Das vs. District Magistrate
Kubic Darusz vs. Union of India and Others
Nainmal Partap Mal Shah vs. Union of India and Others
Powanammal vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Another
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.