( 1 ) THIS is a group of applications wherein separate but similar orders all dated 19/09/1984 passed under sec. 3 (1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act 1974 (COFEPOSA Act for short) have been challenged by the petitioners. All the petitions arise out of the same facts. All the petitioners are represented by same counsel. With the consent of parties in the aforesaid circumstances all the petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

( 2 ) A few facts necessary for the purpose of this judgment need to be stated. Some information was received by the Customs Officer of the Diamond Harbour Preventive Unit Diamond Harbour 24 Parganas to the effect that some contraband goods were likely to be carried in some vehicles coming from Kakdwip a place 30 kms South of Kulpi More towards Calcutta. Pursuant to the same the said cargo was intercepted and a Jeep and an Ambassador car were examined which resulted in the recovery of wrist watches of foreign origin valued at Rs. 40 lakhs and more. The occupants of the said vehicles were interrogated and it was gathered from them that a trawler by name King Fisher had been used to bring the said watches from a foreign ship and that the watches were off-loaded at Harwood point Kakdwip. That trawler was located and searched and that resulted in recovery of 2 pairs of binoculars and a compass all of foreign origin. There were ten crew members on Board the said trawler out of whom eight are the present petitioners.

( 3 ) IT has been urged in this group of petitions that because of the non-supply of copies of original documents the detenus right to make an effective representation under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution is violated thus vitiating the orders of detention in the present group of cases. In paragraph 5 (iv) of Special Civil Application No. 231 of 1985 the averments in this connection are as under:"the petitioner says and submits that some of the statements mentioned in Annexure C originally are in Hindi and Bengali language. The petitioner says and submits that what they have been served are the documents in English language and its translations into Gujarati language which are allegedly true copies of the statements in Bengali and Hindi language. The petitioner says and submits that they have not been served with the original statements in Hindi and Bengali language. He has been served with the true copies of the said statement in Bengali and Hindi i. e. in the English and Gujarati language. The petitioner says and submits that the detaining authority allegedly claims that the said documents which are served on me are the true copies of translations of the original statements. The petitioner says and submits that it is the duty of the detaining authority to furnish the original statement recorded in Bengali and Hindi languages. Unless the original documents in Bengali and Hindi languages are furnished the petitioner is handicapped to compare with what has been served on him. (i e. allegedly its true translated copies ). The petitioner says and submits that he cannot accept that the documents served on him are the correct translated copies of the original statement in Bengali and Hindi languages unless the original statement in Bengali and Hindi languages are furnished to him. The petitioner says and submits that there are mistakes in the translation in English language into Gujarati language and therefore there may be mistakes in the allegedly true translation in English language from original statements in Bengali and Hindi languages however since the detaining authority has not furnished the original statements in Bengali and Hindi languages. The petitioner is not in a position to find out whether it is a correctly translated copy. The petitioner says and submits that in the aforesaid circumstances the documents are not property communicated to him and therefore he has been deprived fr