LexPRAKASH CHANDRA MEHTA versus COMMISSLONER AND SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KERALA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
PRAKASH CHANDRA MEHTA v. CO'vlMISSlONER AND SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KERALA & ORS. 12th April, 1985 697 [S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, A. VARADARAJAN AND SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, JJ.] Constitution of India 1950, Ait, 22. c/J. (4) & (5)-Preventive detention- B c PermisJibilityof-Safeguards to be followed by the detaining authority-Rights of D detenu-What are-"Grounds" for detention-What are. Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act 1914, SS. 3 and 5A-Detentlon-G,rounds of detention-Communication in a language understood by the deteml at the earliest-Afford the detenu an opportunity to 111ake a representation-Co11fession statementJ under s. 108 of the Customs Act E /962-Retraction by detenu-Non-consideration by detaining authority but consi- dered hy AdVisory Board-Whether vitiates detention. Words & Phrases -Meaning of: "Grounds"-Content of in detention order-Nat 1nere factual inferences but factual in]erences plus factual »Jaterial-Constitution of India, 1950, Article 22(5). ' F The petitioner in his three -writ petitiono; under Art. 32 cha11e_nged the detention orders made against his father, sister and brother under the Conserva- tion of Foreign -Exchange and Prevenlion of Smuggling Activities Act, 1~ G On the ba<::is of intelligi!nce rePorts, the customs officials searched the room of the Hotel where father and daughter-Vcnilal D. Mehta and Pragna Mehta were staying. The search led to the recovery of 60 gold biscuits of Foreign origin from the suit case belon!.;,ing to the daughter. Since both of thetn }lad no Vfl.lid' document'! to prove ihe natur..: Qf import of the e;old biscuits to Q 698 SUPREME COURT 1EPORTS (1985] 3 S.C.R. A India and for their tegal possession, thC're was contravention of the Customs Act, 1962 and the Gold Control Act, 1960, and, therefore, liable for confisca. tioti. Both were arrested and statements recorded. c D E F G In the meanwhile Bharat Mehta, another son of the father,-detenu \\'ho had come from Calcutta to arrange for bail was arrested on 4th May 1984 by the Central Excise and Customs Officials after his room in the Hotel, was sear· ched and Indian currency notes amounting to Rs. 24,865 were seized, which he allegedly had brought for meeting the legal expenses for securing release of his father and sister on bail. All the three were remar.ded to jail custody. They retracted their staten1ents made before the Central Excise and Customs Officers alleging that they were made a t·the dictates of the customs officers. Pragna Mehta w2s served with a detention order under the Conservati.on of Eoreign Exchange and ·Prevention of. Smuggling Activitit:s .Act 1974 under s. 3(1) (iii) on 20th June 1984 and was serv:d with the grounds of detention in English language. Hindi translation of the grounds of detention was served on 30th June. 1984. Venilal Mehta and his son Bharat Mehta were served wi.th detention orders under s. 3(1) (iii) and (iv) of the Act on 20th June, 1984 and on 25th June, 1984 the ground.:; of detention were also served on them. The grounds of detention were in English language . while some of the 11ccqmpanying documents were in Malayalam. Th~ detenus made representations for the revo~ cntion of their detention. They appeared before the Advisory Roard on 6th Augu')t, 1984. The Advisory Board reported that th·~re was sufficient cause for detention of the detenus and accordingly the Govt. confirmed their detention Orders on 13th August, 1984. All the three detention orders have been challenged contendihg : (J) that the grounds were not communicated to the detenus in a language understood by them, (2) that the retraction of the confessions or 'statements made under s. 108 of the Custom" Act, 1962 had not been taken into consideration, (3) that there was delay in serving the grounds upon the detenus, (4) that the detenus were not allowed to be represented properly before the Advisory Board, (5) that the fact of retr.ilction of the confessions having not been taken into oonsidera- tion the proceedings were vitiated, and (6) that the detaining authcirity did not independently con<:ider the repr!~!'lt:.ttions of the d-:t!nu'i but mechanically fo11owe_d the advice of the Advisory Board. Dismissing the Petition.;, HELD : t. The pro;~jnr,11 s1f:gu ir;!s hlve h"en complied with as far as practicable. There are n1 m~rits in th! fa11~ied grievances of the detenus .[732] 2. Article 22
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.