IBRAHIM AHMAD BATTI versus STATE OF GUJARAT & OTHERS

Citation: [1983] 1 S.C.R. 540 · Decided: 13-10-1982 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.D. TULZAPURKAR · Disposal: Case Allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
G 
H 
540 
IBRAHIM AHMAD BATTI 
v. 
STATE OF GUJARAT & OTHERS 
October 13, 1982 
[V.0. TULZAPURKAR AND R.B. MISHRA, JJ.) 
Constitution of India, 1950, Article 22(5) and Section 3(3) of the Conser-
vation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1941-
Meaning and import of-Failure to supply the translations of the documents etc. 
relied on, in the ·language 0 knOwn to the detenu and/or delayed-Supply without 
communication of ihe reasons recorded for the delay Would b'e a clear violation of 
the coustitutionai mandate of Article 22(5). 
On April 15, 1982, the Customs Officers raided bungalow No. 3, Sweta 
Park SoCiety, Bhuderpura, Ambawadl, Ahmedabad,' allegedly belonging to the 
petitioner-detenu, but standing in the name of Rekhaben Champaklal Seth and 
during the search that followed in the presence of the p'etitioner and one 
Hasmukh Prabhudas Sharm~ contraband ··Of several items were ·recovered arid 
seized under the reasonable 1Jelief that they were smuggled goods liable to be 
oonsficated under the Customs Act, 1962. This seizure was followed by recording 
of confessional statements of t~e petitioner ·and his co-conspir~tors. During 
the foliow up action certain other premises were searcbCd and further 
contrabaitd was seized. By an order dated April 19, 1982, issued by the State 
of Gujarat under Section 3(1) of COFEPOSA, the petitioner was detaioeQ in 
Abmedabad Central Prison, with a view to preser.ving him from keeping and 
transporting smuggled goods.· Grounds of detention dated April 23, 1982 
aloogwith copies of statements and documents relied upon by the detaining 
authority were served on the petitioner. The petitioner's represCntation to the 
Advisory Board was accepted, since the failure on the part of the detaining 
authority to supply the translations in Urdu of the grounds and documents relied 
upon,• amounted to a clear "'.iolation of the constitutional mandate of Article 
22(5) vitiating the order of detention. Consequently, the order of detention 
was revoked by the State under section 8(f) of COFEPOSA and directed his 
release forthwith, unless he was required to be retained in custody under orders 
of any competent Court.gr Law. 
Ho~ever, on the same day i.e. on lst of 
July 1982, the State Government passed another order of detention against the 
petitioner under section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA and served it on him on 2nd of 
July 1982 whilst he was in judicial custody under Court's Order in two cases, 
one under the Arms Act and another under the Foreigrier's Act. This detention 
order was also passed with a' view to preventing him from smuggling goods and 
engaging himself in transporting smuggled goods and keeping smuggled goods." 
Gr~unds of detention tunning into 32 typed pages in.~nglish together with copies 
' 
I 
• 
,_ 
,. 
IBRAHIM V. GUJARAT 
541 
of all the statements arid documents referred to and relied upon in the grounds, 
in regional language, were served upon the petitioner on 7th July, 1982. Urdu. 
translations of only some .of these docuoients were supplied on 15th of July 1982 
without furnishing the recorded reasons for the delay in supplying them. The 
petitioner's representations made tbrollgb his 
counsel ori '5th August· 1982, 
having been rejected on 13th August, 1982 the petitioner has filed this writ 
petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, contending that , non-supply of 
Urdu trRnslations of some of the statements and documents relied upon by the 
detaining authority. 
In spite of the revocation. of an earlier order on this 
ground, and the non-communication of the reasons for the delayed supply of 
Urdu translations in respect of the rest of the documents, have resulted in viola-
tion of Article 22(5) of the Constitution read with section 3(3) of the 
COFEPOSA. 
' 
~ Aliowing ihe Petition, the Court, 
HELD : Jn section 3(3) of the COFEPOSA, the concept of "reasonable 
' time" 1 or "the shortest possible time" or reasonably requisite time", predicated 
by the expression "as soon as may be" ·bas beCn retained b~t it is only with a 
view to.meet the practical exigeticies of administrative affairs that the. detainiDg 
authority is permitted to· communicate the grounds of detention, not latter' thin 
5 days ordinarily, and not later than 15 days, if there are exceptional circum-
~tanccs and that too with a safeguard of reasons being recorded in writing. 
In other words, section 3(3) provideS 1 for the outer limits and the gro

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.