@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
David Annoussamy, J.@mdashThis is a petition by the detenu''s brother under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of
habeas corpus quashing the order of detention passed against the detenu T.Rajee and setting him at liberty. The order of detention was passed on
25.3.1987 by the respondent, viz.,the Joint Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi, in
exercise of the powers conferred u/s 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, with a view
to prevent the detenu from smuggling gold.
2. On the night of 30/31.8.1986 at 2.30 a.m., the detenu T.Rajee arrived as a passenger from Singapore at Madras International Airport and
produced his baggage consisting of one Unilite Brown Zip suitcase and one black colour Happy Fly Japan hand Zip bag for customs examination.
He declared that the baggage contained one Akai Video Cassette Recorder Vs-3. He was cleared after payment of duty of Rs. 11,320/-. While
he was proceeding along with his baggage towards the exit, he was intercepted by an officer of Customs Air Intelligence Unit, on suspicion that he
might be carrying gold in his baggage. When questioned, he stated that he did not conceal any gold in his baggage. The baggage was opened in the
presence of witnesses. On a detailed examination of the Akai Video Cassette Recorder the circuit boards were found tampered with and one of
the circuit boards with coverings was found to be heavy. When these board coverings were removed, there were four gold bars of 10 tolas each,
one gold bit weighing 45 gms, one gold bit weighing 57 gms, all kept together and bound by adhesive tape, inside the circuit board coverings and
the same were recovered. The total weight of the gold bars recovered was 577 grams: the market value of which on the date of detection was Rs.
1,35,585/-.
3. On the basis of the statements, confessions and recoveries made and other materials gathered by the Customs Department officials, the above
said detention order was passed. The detention order is challenged by the petitioner on three grounds.
I) Non-furnishing of Tamil versions of three documents,
II) Delay in passing the order,
III) There is no mention in the copy of the detention order served upon the detenu that it was read over and explained in Tamil to him.
4. Learned Counsel for the respondent contents that the contentions raised by the petitioner are flimsy and hypertechnical and would rely upon the
decision of the Supreme Court in Prakash Chandra Mehta Vs. Commissioner and Secretary, Government of Kerala and Others, in which the
Supreme Court has insisted that in dealing with matters of detention, the court should avoid being hypertechnical and in dealing with situations, a
pragmatic approach should be adopted. With these guidelines, we shall examine the contentions raised by learned Counsel for petitioner.
5. It is first urged that among the documents relied on by the Detaining Authority, translation of three documents were not supplied to the detenu,
that the detenu, who is a scooter mechanic, knows only Tamil and that the absence of giving the Tamil versions of those three documents
prevented him from making an effective representation and on account of that irregularity, the/order of detention is vitiated. We have perused these
three documents which are as follows: (1) Customs Receipt (2) Baggage Receipt and (3) Customs Clearance Card. As far as the first and third
documents are concerned, it is found that these documents are in English and were attested by the detenu at the time when they were prepared. It
has also to be seen that in these documents, the detenu has put his signature in token of the fact that the detenu was aware of the contents when he
signed in them on 30.8.1986, though they are in English. As far as the second document is concerned, it is already in both the languages and only
the description of articles which he had brought on that day is in English and that document gives details of the customs duly payable for these
articles Rs. 3400/- for the VCR set and Rs. 7920/- for other items, making a total of Rs. 11,320/- which the detenu has paid on the night of
30.8.1986. Therefore, the contents of that document was also known to the detenu. At any rate, it cannot be said that the absence of translating
the list of articles has resulted in causing prejudice to the detenu and prevented him from making any effective representation. We, therefore, do not
see much force in the contention put forth by learned Counsel for petitioner that the absence of Tamil translation of the above said documents
constituted an invasion of the rights of the detenu and prevented him from making an effective statement.
5A. The second contention raised is that there is a delay of six months and twenty four days between the date of occurrence and the date of
passing of the detention order and that on account of such inordinate delay the nexus between the occurence and the order gets snapped. In
support of this contention reliance was placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Jagannath Biswas v. State of West Bengal 1975 Cri L J
1328 and Rabindra Kumar Ghosel alias Buli Vs. The State of West Bengal, . The Supreme Court, in a case under the Maintenance of Internal
Security Act, 1971, held that the chain of connection between the dangerous activities relied on and the detention order passed is snapped by the
long and unexplained delay of about three months.
6. In reply to the these contentions, the learned Counsel for the respondent stated that this ground of delay was not taken in the grounds of writ
petition and that, therefore, it was not possible for him to file any counter explaining the delay and showing that the matter has been continuously
attended to. The paragraph in which the petitioner states having taken this ground is 5(F) of his affidavit which reads as follows:
I submit that in the grounds it is mentioned that the alleged occurrence had taken place on 30/31-8-86. For this single instance, the detaining
authority had thought fit to detain the detenu on insufficient grounds and materials. I further submit that after the lapse of 6 months and 24 days (that
is from its date of occurrence) the respondent has passed detention order. During this period, the respondent failed to take into account, that the
detenu had not indulged in any such activities.
Normally, in each paragraph there should be a ground. In para 5(F), the petitioner refers to insufficiency of grounds, lapse of 6 months and 24
days between the dale of occurrence and the detention order and failure to take into account that the detenu had not indulged in any nefarious
activities during that period. When many facts arc mentioned in one paragraph, in order to ascertain what is the real ground taken in that
paragraph, one would necessarily take the last sentence and that reads:
During this period, the respondent failed to take into account that the detenu had not indulged in any such activities.
It, therefore, appears that the lapse of 6 months and 24 days is mentioned to put forth a plea that the detenu had not indulged in any nefarious
activity during that period and, therefore, the contention of learned Counsel for respondent that the plea of delay in passing the order had not been
taken by the petitioner in order to be met by him, sounds acceptable Even otherwise, taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case,
we arc satisfied that the period of 6 months and 24 days is not a too long one so as to come to the conclusion that the nexus has snapped. It is
worth remembering that the detenu has hidden the gold bars in the board coverings and that though he was successful first, to go through the
customs barrier, he was caught thereafter only by doubt. Therefore, bearing in mind, the observation of the Supreme Court in Prakash Chandra
Mehta v. Commissioner and Secretary, Government of Kerala 1985 SCC Supp. 144, we are of the opinion that in the present case, the delay has
not vitiated the order.
7. The third contention raised by learned Counsel for petitioner is that the order of detention served upon the detenu does not disclose that the
order was read over and explained to him in Tamil. Learned Counsel for the respondent would reply that whether the order was read over and
explained in Tamil will be known only to the Jail Authorities and that if the petitioner was keen in taking up such a plea, he should have impleaded
the Superintendent of Central Prison, Madras. The petitioner docs not come forward to say that it was not read over to the detenu in his affidavit;
his case is only that there is nothing on record to show that it was read over and explained in Tamil. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would
admit that the order of detention and the grounds of detention were served upon the detenu at the same lime and the grounds of detention contain
all the essential details found in the order of detention and, therefore, the absence in the order of detention that it was also read over and explained
in Tamil to the detenu would not vitiate the detention proceedings so as to entitle the detenu to be set at liberty. This contention also fails.
8. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed.
