1980 JTR(SC) 290
1980 AIR(SC) 2129 ; 1980 CrLJ 1479 ; 1980 4 SCC 427 ; 1980 SCC(Cri) 987 ; 1980 1 SCC(Cri) 987 ; 1980 UJ 682 ; 1980 1 UJ 682 ; 1980 KHC 917
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, J.
Nainmal Pertap Mal Shah, Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others, Respondents.
Writ Petn. No. 595 of 1980
Decided on 23-6-1980.
Act Referred :CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.22(5)
Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 - Detention - Order of detention - Detenu was served with order of detention and grounds thereof in English - Detenu does not know English and detenu could not understand said grounds of detention nor he was given any copy of grounds of detention, duly translated in vernacular language - It was duty of detaining authority to have supplied detenu in a regional language or at least in Hindi - Under Secretary to Government of India stated that grounds were explained to detenu by Prison authorities - In affidavit name of authority concerned or designation is not mentioned - Nor is there any affidavit by person who is stated to have explained contents of grounds to detenu - Under Secretary further suggested that as detenu had signed number of documents in English, it must be presumed that he was fully conversant with English - Held, detenu has expressly stated that he did not know English - Merely because he may have signed some documents it cannot be presumed, in absence of cogent material, that he had a working knowledge of English - It is also in dispute that a translated script of grounds were supplied to detenu at the time when grounds were served on him - This is undoubtedly an essential requirement, as held by this Court in Hadibandhu Das v. District Magistrate, Cuttack, (1969) 1 SCR 227 : (AIR 1969 SC 43) - In these circumstances, there has been a clear violation of the Constitutional provisions of Article 22 (5) so as to vitiate order of detention - Petition is allowed, continued detention of the detenu being invalid, he is directed to be released forthwith - Petition allowed.
Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 - Detention - Order of detention - Detenu was served with order of detention and grounds thereof in English - Detenu does not know English and detenu could not understand said grounds of detention nor he was given any copy of grounds of detention, duly translated in vernacular language - It was duty of detaining authority to have supplied detenu in a regional language or at least in Hindi - Under Secretary to Government of India stated that grounds were explained to detenu by Prison authorities - In affidavit name of authority concerned or designation is not mentioned - Nor is there any affidavit by person who is stated to have explained contents of grounds to detenu - Under Secretary further suggested that as detenu had signed number of documents in English, it must be presumed that he was fully conversant with English - Held, detenu has expressly stated that he did not know English - Merely because he may have signed some documents it cannot be presumed, in absence of cogent material, that he had a working knowledge of English - It is also in dispute that a translated script of grounds were supplied to detenu at the time when grounds were served on him - This is undoubtedly an essential requirement, as held by this Court in Hadibandhu Das v. District Magistrate, Cuttack, (1969) 1 SCR 227 : (AIR 1969 SC 43) - In these circumstances, there has been a clear violation of the Constitutional provisions of Article 22 (5) so as to vitiate order of detention - Petition is allowed, continued detention of the detenu being invalid, he is directed to be released forthwith - Petition allowed.
JUDGMENT
S. M. FAZAL ALI, J. (Vacation Judge) :— The detenu-petitioner in this case was detained by an order dated 4th of March, 1980 of the Central Government under the provisions of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA). The only point argued before me by learned counsel for the detenu is that the grounds of detention furnished to the detenu were in English language which he did not know or understand and no translated script was supplied to him. This averment is clearly made in para 21 (Grounds) of the Petition, the relevant portion of which may be extracted thus:
"That the detenu was served with order of detention and grounds thereof in English. The detenu does not know English and therefore, the detenu could not understand the said grounds of detention nor he was given any copy of the grounds of detention, duly translated in vernacular language. It was the duty of the detaining authority to have supplied the detenu in a regional language or at least in Hindi".
2. Controverting this allegation, the Under Secretary to the Government of India stated that the grounds were explained to the detenu by the Prison authorities. In the affidavit the name of the authority concerned or the designation is not mentioned. Nor is there any affidavit by the person who is stated to have explained the contents of the grounds to the detenu. The Under Secretary further suggested that as the detenu had signed number of documents in English, it must be presumed that he was fully conversant with English. This is an argument which is based on pure speculation when the detenu has expressly stated that he did not know English. Merely because he may have signed some documents it cannot be presumed, in absence of cogent material, that he had a working knowledge of English. It is also in dispute that a translated script of the grounds were supplied to the detenu at the time when the grounds were served on him. This is undoubtedly an essential requirement, as held by this Court in Hadibandhu Das v. District Magistrate, Cuttack, (1969) 1 SCR 227 : (AIR 1969 SC 43). In these circumstances, therefore, there has been a clear violation of the Constitutional provisions of Article 22 (5) so as to vitiate the order of detention. The petition is, therefore, allowed, the continued detention of the detenu being invalid, he is directed to be released forthwith.
Petition allowed.
For Citation: AIR 1980 SC 2129
Vikas Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd.