{"id":185103,"date":"1985-04-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1985-04-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakash-chandra-mehta-vs-commissioner-and-secretary-on-12-april-1985"},"modified":"2015-06-13T10:00:19","modified_gmt":"2015-06-13T04:30:19","slug":"prakash-chandra-mehta-vs-commissioner-and-secretary-on-12-april-1985","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakash-chandra-mehta-vs-commissioner-and-secretary-on-12-april-1985","title":{"rendered":"Prakash Chandra Mehta vs Commissioner And Secretary … on 12 April, 1985"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Prakash Chandra Mehta vs Commissioner And Secretary … on 12 April, 1985<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1986 AIR 687, \t\t 1985 SCR (3) 697<\/div>\n
Author: S Mukharji<\/div>\n
Bench: Mukharji, Sabyasachi (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nPRAKASH CHANDRA MEHTA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nCOMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KERALA & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT12\/04\/1985\n\nBENCH:\nMUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J)\nBENCH:\nMUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J)\nFAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA\nVARADARAJAN, A. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1986 AIR  687\t\t  1985 SCR  (3) 697\n 1985 SCC  Supl.  144\t  1985 SCALE  (1)813\n CITATOR INFO :\n RF\t    1986 SC2177\t (47)\n D\t    1987 SC1192\t (12)\n RF\t    1988 SC 723\t (9)\n F\t    1990 SC 176\t (28)\n RF\t    1990 SC 605\t (11,12)\n RF\t    1990 SC1272\t (11)\n D\t    1991 SC1375\t (4)\n\n\nACT:\n     Constitution of  India 1950  Act. 22  Cls. (4)  &\t(5)-\nPreventive  detention-Permissibility   of-Safeguards  to  be\nfollowed by  the detaining  authority-Rights of\t detenu-What\nare-Grounds for detention-What are\n     Conservation of  foreign  Exchange\t and  Prevention  of\nsmuggling Activities  Act 1974 SS 3 and 5A-Detention-Grounds\nof detention-Communication  in a  language understood by the\ndetenu at  the earliest-Afford\tthe detenu an opportunity to\nmake a\trepresentation-Confession statements  under s 108 of\nthe Customs Act\t 1962-Retraction by detenu-Non-consideration\nby detaining  authority but  considered by  Advisory  Board-\nWhether vitiates detention\n     Words & Phrases-Meaning of\n     \" Grounds\"\t -Content of  in  detention  order-Not\tmere\nfactual inferences  plus  factual  material-Constitution  of\nIndia 1950 Article 2 (5).\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The petitioner  in his  three writ petitions under Art.\n32 challenged  the detention orders made against his father,\nsister\tand   brother  under  the  Conservation\t of  Foreign\nexchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act 1974.\n     On the  basis  of\tintelligence  reports,\tthe  customs\nofficials searched  the room  of the  Hotel where father and\ndaughter-Venilal D. Mehta and Pragna Mehta were staying. The\nsearch led  to the  recovery of\t 60 gold biscuits of foreign\norigin from  the suit  case belonging to the daughter. Since\nboth of\t them had  no valid  document to prove the nature Or\nimport of the gold biscuits to..\n698\nIndia  and   for   their   legal   possession,\t there\t was\ncontravention of  the Customs Act, 1962 and the Gold Control\nAct, 1960,  and, therefore,  liable for\t confiscation.\tBoth\nwere arrested and statements recorded.\n     In the  meanwhile Bharat  Mehta,  another\tson  of\t the\nfather, -detenu\t who had  come from  Calcutta to arrange for\nbail was  arrested on 4th May 1984 by the Central Excise and\nCustoms Officials  after his room in the Hotel, was searched\nand Indian  currency notes  amounting  to  Rs.\t24,865\twere\nseized, which he allegedly had brought for meeting the legal\nexpenses for  securing release\tof his\tfather and sister on\nbail. All  the three  were remanded  to jail  custody.\tThey\nretracted their\t statements made  before the  Central Excise\nand Customs  Officers alleging\tthat they  were made  at the\ndictates of the customs officers.\n     Pragna Mehta  was served  with a  detention order under\nthe Conservation  of  foreign  Exchange\t and  Prevention  of\nSmuggling Activities  Act 1974\tunder s.  3(1) (iii) on 20th\nJune 1984  and was  served with\t the grounds of detention in\nEnglish\t language.  Hindi  translation\tof  the\t grounds  of\ndetention was  served on  30th June, 1984. Venilal Mehta and\nhis son Bharat Mehta were served with detention orders under\ns. 3(1)\t (iii) and (iv) of the Act on 20th June, 1984 and on\n1) 25th June, 1984 the grounds of detention were also served\non them.  The grounds  of detention were in English language\nwhile some  of the accompanying documents were in Malayalam.\nThe detenus made representations for the revocation of their\ndetention. They\t appeared before  the Advisory\tBoard on 6th\nAugust, 1984.  The advisory  Board reported  that there\t was\nsufficient  cause   for\t detention   of\t the   detenus\t and\naccordingly the\t Govt. confirmed  their detention  Orders on\n13th August, 1984.\n     All the  three detention  orders have  been  challenged\ncontending: (1)\t that the  grounds were\t not communicated to\nthe detenus  in a  language understood by them, (2) that the\nretraction of  the confessions\tor statements  made under s.\n108 of\tthe Customs  Act,  1962\t had  not  been\t taken\tinto\nconsideration, (3)  that there\twas  delay  in\tserving\t the\ngrounds upon  the detenus,  (4) that  the detenus  were\t not\nallowed to  be\trepresented  properly  before  the  Advisory\nBoard, (5)  that the  fact of  retraction of the confessions\nhaving not  been taken\tinto consideration  the\t proceedings\nwere vitiated,\tand (6) that the detaining authority did not\nindependently consider\tthe representations  of the  detenus\nbut mechanically followed the advice of the Advisory Board.\n     Dismissing the Petitions,\n^\n     HELD: 1.  The procedural  safeguards have been complied\nwith as\t far as\t practicable. There  are no  merits  in\t the\nfancied grievances of the detenus .[732]\n     2. Article\t 22 of\tthe Constitution  ensures protection\nagainst arrest\tand detention  except in  certain prescribed\ncircumstances and conditions. Art. 22(4)\n699\nstipulates that\t no law\t providing for\tpreventive detention\nshall authorise\t the   detention of  a person  for a  longer\nperiod than  three months  unless  (a)\tAdvisory  Board\t has\nreported before\t the expiration\t of the said period of three\nmonths that  there is  in its  opinion sufficient  cause for\nsuch detention and (b) such person is detained in accordance\nwith the  provision of\tany law made by the Parliament under\nsub-cls. (a) and (b) of cl. (7). [618D-G]\n     Clause (5)\t of Art.  22 provides  that the\t grounds  of\ndetention must\tbe communicated to the detenu as soon as may\nbe and\tthat he\t should be afforded the earliest opportunity\nof making  a representation  against the order. There. fore,\nit must\t follow as  an imperative  that the  grounds must be\ncommunicated in\t a language understood by the person so that\nhe can make an effective representation. [719; 72013-C]\n     Harikisan v. The State of Maharashtra & Others, [1962]\n 2 Supp. SCR 918. C\n     In the instant case, the facts revealed that the detenu\nVanilal Mehta  was constantly  accompanied and\twas  in\t the\ncompany of his daughter as well as his son-both of whom knew\nEnglish very  well. The\t father signed his mercy petition in\nGujrati which was written in English, accepting the guilt of\nhis involvement\t in smuggling.\tThere is no rule of law that\ncommon sense should be put in cold storage while considering\nconstitutional provisions  for safeguards  against misuse of\npowers by authorities though these constitutional previsions\nshould be  strictly construed.\tHe was in any event given by\n30th June 1984 the Hindi translation of the grounds of which\nhe claimed ignorance. The gist of annexures which were given\nin Malayalam  language had  been stated in the grounds. That\nhe does\t not know anything except Gujrati  merely ipse dixit\nof father  -detenu and is not the last word and the Court is\nnot denuded  to its powers to examine the truth The Court is\nnot the\t place where  one can  sell all tales. The detaining\nauthority came\tto the\tconclusion that\t he knew both  Hindi\nand English. It has been stated so in the counter-affidavit.\nThe circumstances  indicate that  father -detenu  was merely\nfeigning ignorance of English\n\t\t\t\t\t   [720C-H; 720 A-B]\n     In the  instant case,  the grounds\t were given  on 20th\nJune, 1984 following the search and seizure of gold biscuits\nfrom room  of detenu  Venilal Mehta  in\t the  Hotel  in\t his\npresence and in the background Or the mercy petition, he was\nin constant touch with his daughter and sons and there is no\nevidence that  these people  did not  know Hindi or English.\nIndeed they  knew English  as well as Hindi. It is difficult\nto accept  the position\t that in  the peculiar facts of this\ncase, the  grounds were\t not communicated  in this sense the\ngrounds of  detention were  not\t conveyed  to  the    detenu\nVenilal. Whether  grounds were\tcommunicated or\t not  detenu\nupon the fact and circumstances of each case. [712 D-F]\n     Hadibandhu Das  v. District  Magistrate, Cuttack & Anr.<\/a>\n[1969] 1  SCR 227, Nainmal Partap Mal Shah v. Union of India\nand Ors<\/a> [1980] 4 SCC 427 and Ibrahim Ahmad Batti v. State of\nGujrat & ors. [1983] 1\tSCR 540 distinguished.\n700\n     4 Article\t22(5) of  the Constitution  has two elements\n(i) communication  of the  grounds on  which  the  order  of\ndetention has  been made  and  (ii)  opportunity  of  making\nrepresentation against the order of detention. Communication\nof the\tgrounds pre-supposes  the formulation of the grounds\nand formulation\t of the\t ground\t requires  and\tensures\t the\napplication of\tthe mind  of the  detaining authority to the\nfacts and  materials before  it that  is to say to pertinent\nand proximate  matters in regard to each individual case and\nexcludes the element of arbitrariness and automatism. [725E-\nG]\n     5. The \"ground.\" under Art 22(S) of the Constitution do\nnot mean mere factual inferences but mean factual inferences\nplus factual  material\twhich led to such factual inferences\nThe concept  of'grounds'.,  therefore'\thas  to\t receive  an\ninterpretation which  will keep it meaningfully in tune with\nthe contemporary notions of the realities of the society and\nthe purpose  of the Act in question in the light of concepts\nof liberty  and fundamental freedom guaranteed by Art. 19(1)\n21 and 22 of the Constitution[725-H; 726 A-B]\n     Smt. Shalini  Soni Etc. v. Union of India & Ors.<\/a> [1981]\n1 SCR 962 relied upon.\n     6. A  democratic Constitution  is not to be interpreted\nmerely from  a lexicographer's\tangle but with a realisation\nthat  it  is  an  embodiment  of  the  living  thoughts\t and\naspiration of  a free  people. The concept of \"grounds\" used\nin  the\t  context  of\tdetention  in\tArt.  22(5)  of\t the\nConstitution and  in sub s. (3) of s.3 of COFEPOSA therefore\nhas  to\t  receive  an  interpretation  which  will  keep  it\nmeaningfully in\t tune with  a contemporary notion. While the\nexpression \"grounds\"  for  that\t matter\t includes  not\tonly\nconclusion of  facts but also all the \"basic facts\" on which\nthose conclusions  were founded,  they\tare  different\tfrom\nsubsidiary  facts   or\tfurther\t particulars  or  the  basic\nfacts.[726C-E]\n     Hasmukh S\/o  Bhagwanji M. Patel v. The State Of Gujarat\nJUDGMENT<\/a>:\n<\/pre>\n
     In the  instant ease  the grounds\tof detention  is the
\nsatisfaction of\t the detaining authority that with a view to
\npreventing the\tdetenu from acting in any manner prejudicial
\nto the\tconservation or\t augmentation of foreign exchange or
\nwith a\tview to\t preventing  the  detenu  from\tinter  alia,
\ndealing in  smuggled goods  otherwise then  by\tengaging  in
\ntransporting or concealing or  keeping the smuggled goods or
\nengaging in  transporting or  concealing or keeping smuggled
\ngoods  the   detention\tof  the\t detenu\t us  necessary\tThis
\nsatisfaction was  arrived  at  an  inferences  from  several
\nfactors. One  of  them\tis  that  the  retraction  from\t the
\nstatements made in the confession or statements under s. 108
\nof the\tCustoms Act had not been taken into consideration by
\nthe detaining  authority while\tpassing detention order. The
\nquestion  is  whether  even  if\t the  facts  stated  in\t the
\nconfession are\tcompletely ignored  then the  inferences can
\nstill be  drawn from  other independent\t and objective facts
\nmentioned in this
\n701<\/span>
\ncase ,\t namely\t ,   the fact of seizure of 60 gold biscuits
\nfrom the  suitcase of  the daughter  in the  presence of the
\nfather which indubitably belonged to the father and admitted
\nby him\tto belong  to him  for which no explanation has been
\ngiven and  secondly the seizure of the papers connected with
\nother groups and organisations to whom gold has been sold by
\nthe father  are relevant grounds from which an inference can
\nreasonably be  drawn for  the satisfaction  of the detaining
\nauthority for  detaining the detenus for the purpose of Sec.
\n3(1)  (iii)  and  3(1)(iv)  The\t impugned  order  cannot  be
\nchallenged merely  by the  rejection of\t the inference drawn
\nfrom confession. [726E-H; 727A-C]\n<\/p>\n
     7.(i) The\tCourt is  not concerned with the sufficiency
\nof the\tgrounds. It  is concerned whether there arc relevant
\nmaterials on  which a  reasonable belief or conviction could
\nhave been  entertained by  the detaining  authority  on\t the
\ngrounds mentioned  in s.  3(1) of  the\tAct.  Whether  other
\ngrounds should\thave been taken into consideration or not is
\nnot relevant  at the  stage of\tthe passing of the detention
\norder. If  that in the position then in view of s. 5A of the
\nAct there  was sufficient material to sustain this ground of
\ndetention. [727D-E]\n<\/p>\n
     (ii) When\tdetention under\t s. 3 Or the Act is only for
\nthe purpose of prevention of smuggling and all the grounds ,
\nwhether there  are one or more ,  would be relatable only to
\nvarious activities of smuggling and no other separate ground
\nwhich could  deal with matters other than smuggling could be
\nconceived of  because the  act of  smuggling covered several
\nactivities each\t forming a  separate ground of detention and
\nthe Act dealt with no other act except smuggling ,  Whenever
\nallegations of\tsmuggling were made against a person who was
\nsought to be detained for preventing further smuggling there
\nis bound  to be\t one act  or several  acts with\t the  common
\nobject of  smuggling goods  which was sought to be prevented
\nby the\tAct.’ It would ,  therefore ,  not be correct to say
\n1 that\tthe object  of the  Act constituted  the ground\t for
\ndetention. In the instant case ,  however ,  the authorities
\nconcerned came\tto the\tconclusion  that  the  detenus\twere
\nengaged in  smuggling ,\t  in support of the same they relied
\non several  factors namely:  (1) the  search and seizure and
\nrecovery of  60 gold  biscuits ,   (2)\tthe  fact  that\t the
\nimportation of\tthe 60\tgold biscuits could not be explained
\nby the\tdetenu Venilal\t,  (3) the secretive manner in which
\nthe said gold biscuits were kept and (4) the connection with
\nthe various  dealers and  the statements of the employees of
\nthe dealers  that the  father and the sons used to come with
\ngold  bars.   These  materials\t were  in  addition  to\t the
\nstatements and\tconcessions made under s. 108 of the Customs
\nAct by\tthe father  ,  the sons and the daughter. So even if
\nthe statements\tmade by\t the n are ignored and obliterated ,
\nthe other  facts remain and these are- good enough materials
\nto come\t to prima facie belief that detention of the detenus
\nwas necessary.\n<\/p>\n
     State Or  Gujrat v.  Chamanlal Manjibhai  Soni<\/a> [1981] 2
\nSCR 500 followed.\n<\/p>\n
     In the  instant case  ,\tthere  was  no\trequest\t for
\nconsultation with  the Advocate.  There is  no case  of non-
\nproduction of  the detenu  in spite  of\t intimation  by\t the
\nAdvocate to  the Customs  Officers before  a Magistrate. The
\nconfessional statement\twas not the only fact upon which the
\ndetaining authority  had passed\t an order.  In the  premises
\neven if the confessional statements which were ret-\n<\/p>\n
702<\/span><\/p>\n
racted as  such could  not be  taken  into  consideration  ,
\nthere  are  other  facts  independent  of  the\tconfessional
\nstatement which can reasonably lead to the satisfaction that
\nthe authorities had come to. [729E-G]
\n     Ashadevi ,\t wife of  Gopal Chermal Mehta (Detenu) v. K.
\nShiveraj Addl. Chief Secretary<\/a> to the Government of Gujrat &
\nAnr. [1979] 2 SCR 215 ,\t distinguished.\n<\/p>\n
     In the  instant case  ,   there was no delay in serving
\nthe grounds upon the detenus. The father-detenu was detained
\non 20th June ,\t1984. As required under s.8 (3) of the Act ,
\nthe case of the detenu was referred to the Advisory Board on
\n18th July  ,   1984. The  representations submitted  by\t the
\ndetenu\twere  also  forwarded  to  the\tAdvisory  Board\t for
\nconsideration. The  services of two persons were utilised by
\nthe Board  in understanding  the statement of the detenu and
\ndeciphering  the  representation  in  Gujrati  submitted  by
\ndetenu Venilal\tMehta to the State Government which was also
\nforwarded to  the Board. Therefore ,  it cannot be said that
\ndetenus\t have\tnot  been   given  proper   facility  to  be
\nrepresented before  the Advisory  Board. Tee allegation that
\nthe detaining  authority did  not independently consider the
\nrepresentation of  the detenu  but mechanically followed the
\nopinion of the Advisory Board cannot be sustained in view of
\nthe fact and circumstances of this case.[759H; J30 A-D]<\/p>\n
&
\n     CRIMINAL  ORIGINAL\t  JURISDICTION\t :   Writ   petition
\n(Criminal) NOS.1721 , 1722 and 1724 of 1984.
\n\t Under Article 32 Of the Constitution of India.
\n     P. Govindan Nair ,\t G.L. Sanghi ,\tFarook M. Razaak and
\nH.K. Puri for the Petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
     T.S. Krishnamurthy\t Iyer and E.M.S. Anam for Respondent
\nNos. 1 and 2.\n<\/p>\n
     N.C. Talukdar  and ,   R.N.  Poddar for  the Respondent
\nNO.3.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     SABYASACHI MUKHARJI  ,   J. One  allegedly\t Venilal  D.
\nMehta is  the father.  Miss Pragna Mehta is the daughter and
\nBharat Mehta  is the  son. They all have been detained under
\nthe Pro\t visions of  Conservation of  Foreign  Exchange\t and
\nPrevention of  Smuggling Activities Act ,  1974 (hereinafter
\nreferred to  as the  ‘Act’) ,\tby  virtue of an order dated
\n19th June ,  1984.\n<\/p>\n
703<\/span><\/p>\n
     Their detentions are challenged in three writ petitions
\nunder Article  32 of  the Constitution\t,   filed by Prakash
\nChandra Mehta ,\t another son of Venilal D. Mehta and brother
\nof Miss Pragna Mehta and Bharat Mehta.\n<\/p>\n
     The facts of these cases basically more or less are the
\nsame  with certain minor variations which would be noticed.\n<\/p>\n
     On the  2nd May  ,\t  1984 ,   the\tfather and  daughter
\nVenilal D.  Mehta and  Pragna Mehta  were  arrested  by\t the
\nofficers of  the Central Excise and Customs ,  Cochin on all
\naccusation of  having in  their possession  60 gold biscuits
\nalleged to  be of  foreign origin. After their arrest ,\t the
\nfather and  his daughter  were taken  to the  office of\t the
\nCentral Excise\tand Customs  ,\tCochin where statements were
\nmade on\t their behalf. It is ,\thowever ,  the allegation of
\nthe petitioner\tthat such statements were obtained by use of
\nthird degree method ,  molestation of the daughter ,  threat
\nand intimidation.  We are  not concerned  with the  truth or
\notherwise  of  such  allegation\t for  the  purpose  of\tthis
\napplication. The  statements of\t the daughter as well as the
\nfather were  written by\t the daughter. It is further alleged
\nin the\tpetition that  the  statement  was  written  by\t the
\ndaughter as dictated by the officers concerned. The father ,
\nVenilal D.  Mehta put  his signature  in English as ‘Balvant
\nShah’. It  must be  noted  that\t statement  in\tEnglish\t was
\nwritten by  the daughter.  lt is alleged that the father and
\nthe daughter  told the\tofficers concerned  that the correct
\nname of\t the father was Venilal Mehta. It is the case of the
\nfather in  the petition\t on his\t behalf\t that  he  does\t not
\nunderstand ,  read or speak or write English but he can only
\nsign his  name in  English. After  the said  statement.\t the
\nfather and the daughter were taken to the Hotel Dwarka where
\nthey were  kept in  separate rooms  under the  guard of\t the
\nofficers. [t  is alleged  on behalf  of the  father and\t the
\ndaughter that  no legal\t assistance was\t allowed in spite of
\nrepeated requests.\n<\/p>\n
     On the  next day  ,   the father  and the daughter were
\nbrought to  the office\tof the\tCentral Excise and Customs ,
\nCochin ,  where once again ,  the daughter wrote a statement
\non her\tbehalf and  on behalf  of her  father. It is alleged
\nthat neither  the said statement was explained to the father
\nnor a  copy was\t supplied. After  the said  recording of the
\nstatement ,  both the father and the daughter
\n704<\/span>
\nwere kept detained at the Customs Department.\n<\/p>\n
     In the meanwhile one Bharat Mehta ,  another son of the
\nfather Venilal\tMehta who  had come from Calcutta to arrange
\nfor bail  was brought  under arrest  by the  officers of the
\nCentral Excise\tin the\tpresence of the father and was asked
\nto identify  the father and his sister whereupon Shri Bharat
\nMehta identified  Shri Venilal\tD. Mehta  as his  father and
\nMiss Pragna  Mehta as his sister. Upon such identification ,
\nMiss Pragna Mehta wrote down a third statement-one on behalf
\nof her\tfather and one on her own behalf. It is alleged that
\nsuch statements were dictated by the officers of the Central
\nExcise.\n<\/p>\n
     Bharat Mehta  also wrote down a statement on his behalf
\nwhich is  similarly alleged to have been written as dictated
\nby the\tofficers.  Then\t all  the  three  aforesaid  persons
\nVenilal D.  Mehta ,  Miss Pragna Mehta and Bharat Mehta were
\nproduced before\t the Acting Chief Judicial Magistrate on 5th
\nMay ,\t1984  at 8.  30 P.M.  at his residence at Vanala and
\nwere reminded to jail custody.\n<\/p>\n
     So far  as Bharat\tMehta is  concerned ,\ton 2nd May ,
\n1984 ,\t he  was in  Calcutta and  he was  informed  by\t his
\nbrother from  Bombay that  his father  Venilal Mehta and his
\nsister Pragna  Mehta had been arrested and upon hearing that
\nhe left\t for Bombay  and arrived  in Bombay  by the  evening
\nflight. On  the following  day i.  e. On  3rd  May.  1984  ,
\nBharat Mehta  left on  the morning  flight  for\t Cochin\t for
\narranging bail\tfor his\t father and  sister. At\t the  Cochin
\nAirport ,  he was apprehended by the officers of the Central
\nExcise who  desired to\tinterrogate him\t and  was  thereupon
\nbrought\t to  the  office  of  the  Central  Excise  and\t was
\ninterrogated about  his complexity in the smuggling of gold.
\nAccording to  Bharat Mehta  ,\tas he had nothing to do with
\nthe smuggling  of gold\t,   he denied  having any connection
\nwith the  same.\t Thereafter he was allowed to go. On 4th May
\n,   1984 the  room in  the Indian  Airlines Hotel. Ernakulam
\nwhere he  was staying  was searched  by the  officers of the
\nCentral Excise\tand Customs. Though Bharat Mehta states that
\nnothing incriminating  was found  ,   the Custom Authorities
\nhad seized  Indian currency  notes amounting  to Rs.  24,865
\nwhich sum  ,   he alleged  to have  brought for\t meeting the
\nlegal expenses.\t Thereafter ,  he was arrested and  taken to
\nidentify his
\n705<\/span>
\nfather and sister as mentioned hereinbefore.
\nWhen all  the three  were remanded  to jail  custody ,\t the
\nfather\t,     the  daughter  and  the  son  retracted  their
\nstatements. They made complaints to the Collector of Central
\nExcise\tand   Customs  about   the  manner  in\twhich  their
\nstatements were\t obtained. Application for bail was moved on
\n7th May\t ,   1984 before  the learned  Acting Chief Judicial
\nMagistrate Miss\t Pragna Mehta  was allowed interim bail till
\n7th May ,  1984. On 8th May ,  1984 the bail application was
\nrejected. After\t the cancellation  of her bail application ,
\nPragna Mehta  moved an\tapplication under section 439 of the
\nCode of\t Criminal Procedure  ,\t 1973 before the Kerala High
\nCourt and  the High  Court was\tpleased\t to  grant  bail  on
\ncertain conditions.  She was served with the detention order
\non 20th\t June ,\t  1984 ,  and the detenu was served with the
\ngrounds of  detention in English language. Hindi translation
\nof the\tgrounds of  detention was  served on , the detenu on
\n30th June ,  1984.\n<\/p>\n
     The  father’s   bail  application\twas  ,\t  however  ,
\nrejected  by   the  Kerala   High  Court.   The\t father\t was
\ntransferred on\t24th May ,  1984 from sub-jail ,  Ernakulam.
\nto the\tGeneral Hospital  ,  Ernakulam because he had become
\nill. He was thereafter admitted in the General Hospital.\n<\/p>\n
     The son’s\tbail application  was also  rejected by\t the
\nHigh Court  of Kerala  and he  was also\t transferred to\t the
\nGeneral ,   Hospital  ,\t  Ernakulam because  he became\till.
\nThereafter on  6th June\t ,  1984 ,  application for grant of
\nbail was  moved on  behalf of  the father and the son before
\nthe Sessions  Judge and the said application was rejected on
\n12th June ,  1984 in respect of both of them.\n<\/p>\n
     Both Bharat Mehta and Venilal Mehta were transferred to
\nthe Medical  College Hospital  ,  Kottayam for treatment. On
\n20th June  1984 ,   the\t father and the son while in custody
\nand undergoing\ttreatment in  Medical College  Hospital were
\nserved\twith  the  detention  orders  under  the  said\tAct.
\nThereafter they\t were transferred  to the  Central Prison  ,
\nTrivandrum.\n<\/p>\n
     On 25th  June ,  1984 ,  the grounds were served on all
\nthree of  them. It  is alleged\tthat the  said grounds\twere
\nserved nearly  at midnight  and\t said  grounds\tserved\twere
\nwritten in English while
\n706<\/span>
\nsome of\t the accompanying documents about six in number were
\nIn Malayalam.\n<\/p>\n
     On 25th  July  ,\t 1984  Miss  Pragna  Mehta  made  an
\napplication  praying  ,\t   inter  alia\tthat  the  order  of
\ndetention by  revoked and  she may be set at liberty. On 4th
\nAugust ,   1984\t ,   she wrote\ta letter  to the  Chairman ,
\nAdvisory  Board\t  seeking  the\t assistance   of   a   legal
\npractitioner  or   a  friend   during  the   Advisory  Board
\nproceedings. It\t is alleged  that on  or about\t6th August ,
\n1984 ,\t she  was informed  at 9.00  A.M. for the first time
\nthat she  had to  appear before\t the Advisory Board at 10.00
\nA.M.\n<\/p>\n
     It is her case that she appeared without being given an
\nopportunity of\tbeing assisted\tby any\tfriend. She  further
\nalleges that  she being\t the only  lady detenu\tin  solitary
\nconfinement ,\tafter  coming back  from the  Advisory Board
\nmeeting made a representation to the detaining authority for
\ncertain jail  facilities namely\t ,   facility of home cooked
\nfood,\treading and writing materials ,\t frequent interviews
\nwith relations and friends ,  facility of writing letters to
\nmother\tin   Gujrati  language\t,    sewing  and  embroidery
\nmaterials and hygienic toilet facility.\n<\/p>\n
     She made  a representation to the Central Government on
\n9th August. 1981 for revocation of her detention order.\n<\/p>\n
     On 11th  August ,\t1984 ,\ta letter was received by her
\nfrom  the   Commissioner  and\tSecretary  to  Government  ,
\nGovernment of  Kerala respondent  No. 1\t that there  was  no
\nprovision for  home cooked  food and  there was\t no solitary
\nconfinement ,\tthat  interviews ,   and  all  outgoing\t and
\nincoming letters  are required to be censored and no special
\nrestrictions have been imposed upon her. She alleges that on
\n13th August  ,\t 1984 ,\t  she  came to\tknow from  the\tjail
\nauthorities  that  the\tAdvisory  Board\t had  confirmed\t the
\ndetention of  her and of brother and father for one year and
\nthat the  opinion of the Advisory Board was published in the
\nlocal newspaper Mothrubhumi on 13th August ,  1984.\n<\/p>\n
     On 23rd  August ,\t 1984 she received a letter that her
\nrepresentation dated  25th July ,  1984 had been rejected On
\n24th August  ,\t 1984 she  received a  letter from the Under
\nSecretary to  the Government  of India\tin terms whereof she
\nwas informed that her repre-\n<\/p>\n
707<\/span><\/p>\n
sentation dated\t 9th August ,  1984 addressed to the Central
\nGovernment had been rejected.\n<\/p>\n
     On 23th  August ,\t1984 ,\tshe was served with an order
\nissued by respondent No. 1 whereby she was informed that the
\nAdvisory Board\tin its\treport had  expressed that there was
\nsufficient cause for detention of the detenu and accordingly
\n,   the Government  confirmed the  order of  detention for a
\nperiod of one year.\n<\/p>\n
     So far as father ,\t Venilal Mehta is concerned ,  it is
\nhis case  that Hindi translation of grounds of detention was
\nserved on  him on  30th June  ,\t  1984. While  supplying the
\nHindi translation  Of the  grounds ,   the  annexures  being
\nannexure Nos.  1. 6  ,\t 8 ,  27 ,  38 and 47 of the list of
\ndocuments were\tsupplied in Malayalam. It is the case of the
\nfather that  he does  not know how to read ,  write or speak
\nEnglish or  Hindi or Malayalam. He can only sign his name in
\nEnglish. But  thereafter on  27th May  ,   1984\t he  made  a
\nrepresentation in Gujrati to the detaining authority praying
\nthat he\t was unable to read ,  write either English or Hindi
\nor Malayalam  and the  grounds of  detention may be given to
\nhim duly translated in Gujrati.\n<\/p>\n
     On 5th  August ,\t1984  ,\t he was informed by a letter
\ndated 4th  August ,  1984 that his representation could only
\nbe examined  after the\tsame was translated into English. On
\n5th August ,  1984 he made a representation to the detaining
\nauthority praying  that his  detention order may be revoked.
\nHe was informed on 6th August ,\t 1984 at 9. 15 A. M. that he
\nwould have to appear before the Advisory Board at 10.00 A.M.
\nHe appeared before the Advisory Board and the Advisory Board
\nhad confirmed his order of detention on 13th August ,  1984.
\nHe received a letter on 25th August ,  1984 that his request
\nfor supply  of grounds\tof detention and connected documents
\nwas  not   considered  necessary   by  the  Government.\t The
\nrepresentation dated 9th August ,  1984 was rejected and the
\nsame was communicated to him by a letter dated 28th August ,
\n1984 ,\t and he was informed on 31st August ,  1984 that the
\nAdvisory Board\twas of the opinion that there was sufficient
\nground for detention. He was also informed by a letter dated
\n10th August ,  1984 that his representation dated 5th August
\n,  1984 had been rejected.\n<\/p>\n
     More or less similar is the Case of the son except that
\nhe
\n708<\/span>
\ndid not plead ignorance of any language English or Hindi.\n<\/p>\n
     As mentioned  hereinafter ,   all\tthe three  detention
\norders have  been challenged by Prakash Chandra Mehta ,\t the
\nson of\tVenilal Mehta and brother of Bharat Mehta and Pragna
\nMehta by these three separate writ petitions.\n<\/p>\n
     The father\t had on\t or about  30th June  ,\t 1984 made a
\nrepresentation for  mercy. It  was written  in\tEnglish\t but
\nsigned in Gujrati. It is the case of the father that his son
\nbrought this representation prepared by his wife and without
\nunderstanding he  signed the  representation for  forwarding
\nthe same to the proper authorities. The detenu Venilal Mehta
\n,   the father\tand Bharat Mehta ,  the son ,  were detained
\non grounds  mentioned in  section 3 (1) (iii) and 3 (i) (iv)
\nof the\tAct and the detenu Miss Pragna Mehta ,\tthe daughter
\nwas detained  on grounds mentioned in section 3 (i) (iii) of
\nthe said  Act. The  said orders were dated 19th June ,\t1984
\nwere served  on 20th  June ,   1984 alongwith the grounds in
\nEnglish It  was\t further  mentioned  in\t the  communications
\ncontaining the said grounds that the said grounds were being
\ncommunicated to\t them for  the purpose\tof Article 22 (5) of
\nthe Constitution  and they  were given opportunities to make
\nrepresentation against the said grounds.\n<\/p>\n
     The grounds  of detention\tstated that  on the basis of
\nintelligence received  a search\t of room  No. 316 of Dwaraka
\nHotel at  M.G. Road  ,\tErnakulam ,  was conducted and after
\nbeing identified  it was stated that the Customs authorities
\nhad reason  to believe\tthat gold of foreign origin was kept
\nin the\troom in the custody of B.V. Shah in contravention of
\nthe provisions\tof the\tCustoms Act ,  1962 and Gold Control
\nAct ,  1960. The occupants of the room ,  the father and the
\ndaughter had  informed that  they were\tnot having  any such
\narticles. Thereafter the Superintendent and the party made a
\nthrough search\tin the presence of the independent witnesses
\n,   the occupants  and the  accountant of  the hotel  ,\t Mr.
\nJayaprakash. In\t addition to the furniture in the room there
\nwere three suitcases and one vanity bag in side the room. On
\nenquiry ,   the\t father informed  that two  of the suitcases
\nbelonged to  him and  the third\t suitcase and the vanity bag
\nbelonged to  his daughter.  The Superintendent requested the
\ndaughter  to  identify\ther  suitcase  and  accordingly\t she
\nidentified a  brown coloured  suitcase marked Aristocrat and
\nvanity bag as hers. The two
\n709<\/span>
\nsuitcases claimed  to be  of the father were examined by the
\nSuperintendent.\t There\t were  no   gold  or   incriminating
\ndocuments   in the  suitcases. The  Superintendent asked the
\ndaughter to open her suitcase and accordingly she opened the
\nsuitcase by  taking a  key from\t her vanity  bag.  When\t she
\nopened ,   the\tsuitcase was  found to\tcontain one inflated
\nair pillow  and certain\t personal clothings- Beneath the air
\npillow and  the personal  clothings ,\tthere was some thing
\nwarped in  a Turkish  towel.  When  the\t Turkish  towel\t was
\nremoved three paper packets with abnormal weight were found.
\nThe  Superintendent  enquired  Or  the\tdaughter  about\t the
\ncontents of  the three\tpackets and she had remained silent.
\nImmediately the\t father disclosed that the packets contained
\ngold biscuits  of foreign  origin. When\t the  Superintendent
\nasked about  the quantity  ,   the father  informed that the
\nthree packets  totally contained 60 gold biscuits ,  with 25
\ngold biscuits  each  in\t two  bigger  packets  and  10\tgold
\nbiscuits in  the small\tpacket. All  the three\tpackets were
\ncovered with  paper bearing  printed  English  letters.\t The
\nthree packets  were opened and examined and found to contain
\n60 gold\t biscuits ,   with  25 gold  his suits\teach in\t two
\npackets and 10 gold biscuits in the third packet. All the 60
\ngold biscuits were thoroughly examined ,  weighed and purity
\ntested by  a certified\tgoldsmith. Each\t gold  biscuits\t was
\nfound to be of 24 carat purity with a weight of 116.5 grams.
\nThe total  weight and  other particulars  of the  said\tgold
\nbiscuits and  other particulars\t of certain  other materials
\nfound were  mentioned. It is unnecessary to set these out in
\ndetail. The persons of both the father and the daughter were
\nsearched. Nothing  incriminating was found from the daughter
\n,   but certain\t documents which  are noted as incriminating
\nwere found  from the  person of father ,  the particulars of
\nthe said  documents have also been set out in that: grounds.
\nIt is  not relevant for our present purpose to set these out
\nin detail.\n<\/p>\n
     The Superintendent\t asked the  daughter and  the father
\nwhether they  were having  any valid  documents to prove the
\nnature of  import and  prove the  legal possession of the 60
\ngold biscuits  of foreign origin recovered from the suitcase
\nclaimed to  be of the daughter. She replied that she did not
\nhave any  such document\t and that she carried the above said
\ngold biscuits  from Bombay  to Cochin  as  directed  by\t her
\nfather. The  father also said that he had no valid documents
\nto prove  the nature  of import\t of the\t 60 gold biscuits to
\nIndia and for the possession of
\n710<\/span>
\nthe same  and that  the daughter  carried the  gold biscuits
\nfrom Bombay to Cochin as directed by him.\n<\/p>\n
     In the premises it was stated that there was reasonable
\nbelief that  60 gold  biscuits were  smuggled into India and
\nacquired and  possessed and  dealt with\t in contravention of
\nthe Customs Act ,  1962 and the Gold Control Act ,  1960 and
\nhence were liable for confiscation.\n<\/p>\n
     The show  cause notice  further stated  that the entire
\narticles in  the suitcase  from which the gold biscuits were
\nrecovered ,   the  key of  the suitcase\t and  the  documents
\nrecovered from\tthe vanity bag of Miss Pragna Mehta and from
\nthe shirt  pocket of  Venilal Mehta  (B.V. Shah)  were\talso
\nseized for  further necessary  action. The value of the gold
\nbiscuits seized\t came to  round about Rs. 14 lakhs. B.V Shah
\nalias Venilal Mehta ,  Miss Pragna Mehta and the independent\n<\/p>\n
1) witnesses  have  signed  on\tthe  documents\tand  on\t the
\nmahazar. Mr.  Jayaprakash accountant  of Dwaraka  Hotal\t had
\nalso appended  his signature  in the  mahazar.A copy  of the
\nmahazar was  also given to B.V. Shah alias Venilal Mehta and
\nhis acknowledgement was obtained on the original.\n<\/p>\n
     Ground I  (b) stated  about the  search on intelligence
\nreport of  Hotel Airlines  at M.G.  Road ,  Ernakulam. It is
\nnot necessary  to set  out in  detail the  documents and the
\ncurrency notes\tseized ,  particulars whereof were stated in
\nthe said show cause.\n<\/p>\n
     In Ground\tI (c)  ,   the search and seizure of Swastic
\nSociety ,   Bombay  have been  set  out.  Certain  telephone
\nnumbers are  noted. The\t documents seized  from\t this  place
\nincluded telephone  bills  installed  at  the  residence  of
\nVenilal Mehta  and two\tother telephone numbers noted in the
\npaper. Other  details of  the ground and facts of the search
\nneed not be set out in detail.\n<\/p>\n
     In\t Ground\t  I  (d)   ,\t it  was   stated  that\t the
\nSuperintendent of  Customs searched premises of R.D. Mehta &
\nCo. and\t certain particulars  of telephone numbers and other
\ndocuments recovered were stated therein.\n<\/p>\n
     In\t Ground\t  I  (e)   ,\t it  was   stated  that\t the
\nSuperintendent searched\t the silver  refinery controlled  by
\nShri Partap Sait. Certain
\n711<\/span>
\ndiaries and  documents are  seized.  The  telephone  of\t the
\nrefinery is  37144. In the documents and diaries seized from
\nthe silver  refinery ,\tphone number 625768-the phone number
\nof the residence of Venilal Mehta was found entered.\n<\/p>\n
     In Ground\tI (f)  ,   it  was  mentioned  that  certain
\ndocuments  were\t  recovered  from   Sadasiva  Sait  ,\t the
\nparticulars whereof  arc mentioned therein the grounds. As a
\nresult of  search 10  foreign made  gold  biscuits  weighing
\n116.500 grams each ,  8 primary gold bars weighing 1714 gms.
\nand one\t gold piece weighing 95 gms. were recovered from the
\noffice room.  It is  further stated in the show cause notice
\nin ground  11 (iii)  that during  the sight  seeing trip  to
\nCochin with  family in\tJanuary ,   1983  Venilal Mehta\t had
\ncontacted different jewellers in Cochin. Shri Pratap Sait of
\nShalimar Jewellery ,  Cochin alone responded to the business
\nof Venilal Mehta.\n<\/p>\n
     These were entered into in the statement signed by Miss
\nPragna Mehta which of course ,\tshe had retracted thereafter
\n     From different  searches at  different places telephone
\nnumber 37144  of Pratap\t Sait (at  the\tsilver\trefinery  of
\nPratap Sait) was found in various documents.\n<\/p>\n
     In Ground\tII (c)\t,   the\t statements  recorded  under
\nsection 108  of the  Customs Act by Venilal Mehta and others
\nwere mentioned. It is not necessary in view of the fact that
\nthese statements have been retracted ,\tto refer and set out
\nthe said grounds in detail.\n<\/p>\n
     In Ground\tII (f)\t,  the interrogation of Bharat Mehta
\nis set\tout. Here also the same cannot be set out because he
\nhas also retracted.\n<\/p>\n
     In Ground\tIII ,\tit is mentioned that Venilal Mehta ,
\nMiss  Pragna  Mehta  and  Bharat  Mehta\t were  arrested\t and
\nproduced before\t the  then  Chief  Judicial  Magistrate\t who
\ngranted permission  to interrogate  Shri Venilal  Mehta\t and
\nShri Bharat  Mehta in  the presence  of Jail Superintendent.
\nThereafter Bharat  Mehta was  interrogated and the result of
\nsuch interrogation is mentioned in Ground IV. The same again
\ncannot be relied on because these have been retracted.\n<\/p>\n
     In Ground\tV(1) ,\t it was stated that Shri Pratap Sait
\nof
\n712<\/span>
\n‘Mahadev Parvathy  House’ was interrogated under section 108
\nof the\tCustoms Act.  He denied having seen Venilal Mehta or
\nB.V. Shah.  He also  denied  any  dealings  with  B.V.\tShah
\nregarding the gold biscuits.\n<\/p>\n
     In Ground\tV (2)  ,   it was  stated that\tMr.  Prakash
\nKrishnan Yadav\t,   an employee\t of the\t silver refinery was
\ninterrogated under section 108 of the Customs Act. He stated
\nthat his  normal work  in the refinery was purifying silver.
\nHe used\t to purify the gold from Shalimar Jewellery also. He
\nknew Bharat  Mehta ,   Venilal\tMehta and Rashmi Mehta. They
\nused to\t come to the refinery. They used to meet the younger
\nbrother of  Pratap Sait ,  Shri Suresh. They were doing some
\nsecret business.  Suresh used  to entrust  him with  certain
\nbundles of  notes to  be handed over to Venilal Mehta or his
\nsons. This  he used  to do.  The documents  seized from\t the
\nrefinery contained  the accounts  of agriculture  and grapes
\nwere written  by Pratap\t Sait. Some  times Venilal  Mehta  ,
\nBharat Mehta  and Rashmi  Mehta used  to stay  at Hotel Blue
\nDiamond and  he had  1> met  them while they were there. The
\ntelephone number  of the refinery ,  he stated ,  was 37144.
\nHis statement  was read\t over to  him  and  admitted  to  be
\ncorrect. This statement was not retracted.\n<\/p>\n
     In Ground\tV (3)  ,  it was stated that one Shri Suresh
\nMahadeva Salunkhe  S\/o Mahadev\tDari Salunkhe  was  examined
\nunder section  108 of  the Customs  Act. He  has also  given
\ncertain facts  about the business of Pratap Sait and others.
\nHe said that Pratap was looking after Blue Diamond Hotel. He
\nalso knew Venilal Mehta ,  Bharat Mehta and Rashmi Mehta. He
\nfurther stated\tthat Venilal Mehta came to the refinery some
\ntime ago  and thereafter  as per the telephonic direction of
\nhis brother  ,\t Shri Pratap  Sait ,   he received some gold
\nbiscuits from  him and\thad given  these to his brother. His
\nbrother gave  a bundle\tof currency notes. This was repeated
\nmany times.\n<\/p>\n
     In Ground\tV (4)  ,  it was stated that one Shri Suresh
\nS\/o Damodharan\t,  was interrogated under section 108 of the
\nCustoms\t Act.  He  also\t stated\t certain  facts\t giving\t the
\nconnection and the phone number of Venilal Mehta. These have
\nbeen set  out in  details in  the ground. The particulars of
\nother grounds in V (5) need not be set out in detail.\n<\/p>\n
713<\/span><\/p>\n
     In Ground\tVI (i)\t,  it was stated that as a follow up
\naction ,   the\thouse of  Pratap Sait  at Convent Junction ,
\nCochin was  searched. No  contraband goods  or incriminating
\ndocuments  were\t  recovered.  Shalimar\tJewellery  was\talso
\nsearched In the premises ,  it was stated ,  against Venilal
\nMehta that  evidence collected showed that Venilal Mehta had
\nlarge scale  dealings in  smuggled gold biscuits.A paper bit
\nrecovered from\thim on\t2nd May\t ,  1984 ,  which show d the
\ndetails of  transaction and  the particulars of the writings
\nof the\tpaper have been set out in the show cause notice and
\nit is  further stated that one Sadasiva Sait was apprehended
\nwith 2974  grams foreign gold biscuits and the numbers shown
\nagainst the  letters ‘S’  in the  paper\t mentioned  here  in
\nbefore related\tto the\tgold biscuits  delivered to  him  by
\nVenilal Mehta  and his\tsons on\t the dates mentioned against
\neach. From  this ,   according\tto the\trespondent ,  it was
\nevident that  the other\t numbers shown\twere also related to
\ngold biscuits-\tAs set\tout before  ,\tSadasiva Sait in his
\nstatement stated  that letters\t‘P’ might  be in relation to
\nPratap Sait and letter ‘B` might be in relation to Bhim Rao.\n<\/p>\n
     From the aforesaid ,  it was stated that it was evident
\nthat Venilal  Mehta ,\tand  in the  case of the other two ,
\nson and the daughter more or less similar grounds are made ,
\nwas dealing  in smuggled  gold biscuit\t and  that  60\tgold
\nbiscuits weighing 6990 grams and valued at Rs. 14 lakhs were
\nseized and that Venilal Mehta ,\t sons Rashmi Kanth Mehta and
\nBharat Mehta  and Miss Pragna Mehta were actively engaged in
\nthe business  of smuggled  foreign  gold  biscuits.  Venilal
\nMehta was  the master  brain behind  this business.A list of
\ndocuments was  annexed. The  search list  and the deposition
\nand necessary  documents ,   the panchnama and he statements
\nwere also annexed with the show cause notice.\n<\/p>\n
     One of  the documents which is annexed to the affidavit
\nin opposition  of the  respondents is a mercy petition which
\nis annexure  R-1 dated\t30th June  ,   1984 addressed to the
\nSecretary and  Commissioner ,\tHome  & Vigilance  ,\tHome
\nDepartment ,  Government of Kerala ,  Trivandrum through the
\nSuperintendent ,   Central  Jail ,   Trivandrum.  In that he
\nstated as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t  “I ,\t Venilal  M Mehta  ,   beg to request you to
\n     give kindly  and sympathetic attention to the following
\n     few
\n714<\/span>
\nlines and render mercy to me.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  I am\tan old\tman of\t60 years.  I had my peaceful
\n     life as  a business  man and  commanded respect  in the
\n     business circle  and friends.  I myself am surprised to
\n     understand what prompted me to involve in such activity
\n     as dealing\t in Imported  Gold. My\tfinancial and social
\n     status was\t unblemished during  all these\tyears of  my
\n     life. I  would not\t say it\t was a greed it was only the
\n     destiny that played this part.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  Looking to my old-age and unstinted career up till
\n     now ,  I beg you to show mercy on me and t o revoke the
\n     order of  detention under\tCOFEPOSA. I  assure you that
\n     never in  my life to come ,  I will indulge in any such
\n     activity there are detrimental to the nation as a whole
\n     and me in particular.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Thanking you in anticipation of your favours ,
\n\t\t\t\t\t  Yours faithfully ,
\n     Trivandrum ,\t\t\t\t\tSd\/-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     30th June ,  1984.\t\t\t (Venilal M. Mehta)”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     It was written in English but signed in Gujrati. It was
\nstated as  mentioned  before  that  it\twas  signed  without
\nunderstanding as  this was  sent by the wife of the detenu ,
\nVenilal Mehta.\n<\/p>\n
     The charges  against the  daughter were under section 3
\n(1) (iii) ,  and against the father ,  Venilal Mehta and the
\nson ,\tBharat Mehta ,\tthese were under section 3 (1) (iii)
\nand 3  (1) (iv)\t of the said Act. The relevant provisions of
\nsection 3 of the said Act reads as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t  “3.  Power   to  make\t  orders  detaining  certain
\n     persons-\n<\/p>\n
 (1)  The Central  Government or the State Government or any
\nofficer of the Central Government ,  not below the rank of a
\nJoint Secretary\t to that  Government ,\tspecially em powered
\nfor the\t purposes of  this section  by that Government ,  or
\nany officer of a State Government ,  not below the rank
\n715<\/span>
\n     of\t a   Secretary\tto  that  Government  ,\t   specially
\n     empowered\t for the  purposes of  this section  by that
\n     Government may  ,\t if satisfied ,\t with respect to any
\n     person (including\ta foreigner)  ,\t that ,\t with a view
\n     to\t preventing   him  from’   acting  in\tany   manner
\n     prejudicial to  the  conservation\tor  augmentation  of
\n     foreign exchange or with a view to preventing him from-\n<\/p>\n
     (i)  XXXX\n<\/p>\n
     (ii) XXXX\n<\/p>\n
     (iii)     engaging in  transporting  or  concealing  or
\n     keeping smuggled goods ,  or\n<\/p>\n
     (iv) dealing  in\tsmuggled  goods\t otherwise  than  by
\n     engaging  in  transporting\t or  concealing\t or  keeping
\n     smuggled goods ,  or\n<\/p>\n
     (v)  XXXX
\n     it is  necessary so  to do\t ,   make an order directing
\n     that such person be detained”\n<\/p>\n
     Before we\tconsider the  submissions on  behalf of\t the
\ndetenus in this case ,\tcertain board facts have to be borne
\nin mind.  Search of room No. 316 of Dwarka Hotel M.G. Road ,
\nErnakulam ,  by the Superintendent of the Central Excise and
\nCustoms ,   Cochin  stands demonstrated.  It also  cannot be
\ndisputed that  the occupants  of the  room at  the  time  of
\nsearch were  Venilal Mehta  alias B.V.\tMehta  and  daughter
\nPragna Mehta.  60 gold\tbiscuits  were\trecovered  from\t the
\nsuitcase belonging  to Miss  Pragna Mehta. Details have been
\nmentioned in  Ground I(a)  ,  Panchnama regarding the search
\nand seizure  was prepared and was signed by the daughter and
\nthe father  and attested by independent witness-one of being
\nthe accountant\tof the\tHotel Secondly\t,    B.V.  Shah\t was
\ninterrogated and  he made  certain statements.\tOn 2nd May ,
\n1984 ,\t there\twas search  of the  house of  Pratap Sait at
\nErnakulam. On  the same\t day ,\t  Shalimar  Jewellery  Fixed
\nDeposit Door  No. 37\/8\t,  Broadway ,  Cochin was searched ,
\nThe statements of B.V. Shah or Venilal Mehta ,\tPragna Mehta
\nand Bharat Mehta under section 108 even if these are ignored
\n,  there
\n716<\/span>
\nwere searches  and statement  by one Shri S. Kumar and there
\nwas also  search on  14th May  ,   1984 of  the\t residential
\nquarters of  Venilal Mehta  at Bombay where telephone having
\nNo 625768  was installed. This telephone number tallied with
\ncertain papers\tof Pratap  Sait and  other houses  mentioned
\nhere in before.\n<\/p>\n
     There was\tsearch of  the premises\t of Venilal Mehta in
\nthe name  of  R.D.  Mehta  &  Co.  Bombay.  There  also\t the
\ntelephone numbers  339774 and  338286 were  found installed.
\nThese tallied with the telephone numbers found in the papers
\nin other  houses The  documents recovered  from\t R.D.  Mehta
\nincluded telephone  bills of  phone No.\t 625768 installed at
\nthe house  of Venilal  Mehta which showed that from the said
\nphone trunk calls were booked to Cochin telephone Nos. 37144
\nand 33221  Ernakulam ,\t 37144\tis the\ttelephone number  of
\nSilver Refinery\t and 33221  is the  telephone number of Blue
\nDiamond Hotel controlled by Pratap Sait.\n<\/p>\n
     The search\t of Silver Refinery owned by Pratap Sait was
\nmade on\t 21st May ,  1984. Two diaries and certain documents
\nwere seized.A  Panchnama was  prepared. In  the diary seized
\nfrom the  Silver Refinery  ,   telephone No.  625768 of\t the
\nresidence of Venilal Mehta was found entered.\n<\/p>\n
     Then there\t was statement of Prakash Krishna  Yadav v ,
\none of\tthe employees of Silver Refinery where he had stated
\nVenilal Mehta  ,   Bharat Mehta and another son of Venilal M
\nMehta used  to come  to Refinery.  He had    further  stated
\nthat they  (the aforesaid  named persons)  used the meet the
\nyounger\t  brother Or Pratap Sait 1′ and they were doing some
\nsecret business.  Suresh usual to entrust him with bundle of
\nnotes to be handed over to Venilal Mehta and his sons. These
\nstatements were made under section 108 of the Customs Act by
\nthese persons  and these  statements were  not retracted. He
\nfurther stated\tthat he\t had met  them at Hotel Blue Diamond
\nwhen they  had stayed  there. In  the statement\t of Suresh M
\nChalunka ,  younger brother of Pratap Sait ,  he established
\nthe connection\tof B.V.\t Shall with  the refinery  of Pratap
\nSait at\t Ernakulam. He also confirmed that they were dealing
\nin gold\t biscuits. He  did not\tknow how  many gold biscuits
\nwere there.  Mr. Bharat\t and Mr. Rashmi ,  sons of B.V. Shah
\nused to\t come ,\t  according  to his  statement ,   with gold
\nbiscuits. He  used to  receive the  gold biscuits  and\tgive
\nthese to his brother Pratap Sait.\n<\/p>\n
717<\/span><\/p>\n
     Shri Suresh  ,   receptionist of  Blue Diamond Hotel in
\nstatement on  25th May\t,  1984 under section 108 of Customs
\nAct had\t stated that  on  3rd  May  1984  ,    Bharat  Mehta
\ncontacted him  over the\t phone and accordingly he and Bharat
\nMehta met  at Oberoi  Hotel. Bharat  Mehta had told him that
\nhis father  and sister\twere caught  with gold\tbiscuits and
\nrequested for  help.  On  5th  June  ,\t  1984\t,    Customs
\nDepartment  Superintendent   party  arrived  at\t the  Silver
\nRefinery ,   Trichur of Sadashiv Sait and as a result of the
\nsearch 10  foreign made\t gold biscuits\t,   8  primary\tgold
\nbiscuits and 1 gold piece were recovered. Then on 5th June ,
\n1984 ,\t Sadashiv  Sait was  interrogated. Extracts from his
\nexamination have  been set  out here  in  before  ,    which
\nclearly established  the connection  of Venilal\t with  these
\ntransactions. Some  documents were  recovered from B.V. Shah
\n(Venilal) while\t he was\t caught with  60 gold  biscuits\t and
\nletter ‘S’ has been explained as indicated before.\n<\/p>\n
     On the  above facts  ,   detailed show cause notice was
\nissued. It  is true  that in  the said\tshow cause  ,\t the
\nstatements of  Venilal Mehta on 2nd May ,  1984 ,  3rd May ,
\n1984 and  4th May  ,   1984 were also taken into account but
\nAnnexure ‘C’  to letter\t to  the  Collector  retracting\t the
\nstatement was not taken into account.\n<\/p>\n
     It has  therefore to  be examined\tthat in\t view of the
\nfact that  the whole  statement had  been retracted ,  these
\nstatements  should  have  been\tconsidered  along  with\t the
\nretraction.  The   fact\t of   not  doing   so  will  require
\nexamination. It\t may ,\t however ,  be mentioned that in the
\ncounter-affidavit ,   it  has been  stated that the basis of
\nthe detention  order was  not  only  the  statement  by\t the
\ndetenus but  also other materials which were supplied to the
\ndetenus.\n<\/p>\n
     In support\t of these applications ,  the following main
\ngrounds were urged namely:\n<\/p>\n
     (1) The grounds were not communicated to the detenus in
\na language understood by them.\n<\/p>\n
     (2) The  retraction of  the confessions  or  statements
\nmade under section 108 of the Customs Act had not been taken
\ninto consideration.\n<\/p>\n
718<\/span><\/p>\n
     (3) There\twas delay  in serving  the grounds  upon the
\ndetenus.\n<\/p>\n
     (4) The  detenus were  not allowed\t to  be\t represented
\nproperly before the Advisory Board.\n<\/p>\n
     (5)  The\tfact  that   there  was\t retraction  of\t the
\nconfession having  not been  taken  into  consideration\t the
\nproceedings were vitiated.\n<\/p>\n
     (6)  The  detaining  authority  did  not  independently
\nconsider the  representation  of  detenus  but\tmechanically
\nfollowed the advice of the Advisory Board.\n<\/p>\n
     Preventive\t  detention    under   certain\t  prescribed
\ncircumstances  under  the  provisions  of  certain  Acts  is
\npermissible in\tIndia with certain constitutional safeguards
\nand  the   preventive  detention  which\t is  recognised\t and
\npermitted by  our Constitution\tmust be resorted to strictly
\nwithin those constitutional safeguards ,
\n     Article  22   ensures  protection\tagainst\t arrest\t and
\ndetention except  in certain  prescribed  circumstances\t and
\nconditions. Article  22(4) of  the  Constitution  stipulates
\nthat  no   law\tproviding  for\tpreventive  detention  shall
\nauthorise the\tdetention  of a\t person for  a longer period
\nthan three months unless.\n<\/p>\n
\t  (a) an  Advisory Board  consisting of\t persons who
\n     are ,  or have been ,  or are qualified to be appointed
\n     as ,   Judges  of a  High Court has reported before the
\n     expiration of  the said  period of\t three\tmonths\tthat
\n     there is  in its  opinion\tsufficient  cause  for\tsuch
\n     detention;\n<\/p>\n
\t  Provided that\t nothing in  this  sub-clause  shall
\n     authorise\tthe  detention\tof  any\t person\t beyond\t the
\n     maximum period prescribed by any law made by Parliament
\n     under sub clause (b) of clause (7); or\n<\/p>\n
\t  (b) such person is detained in accordance with the
\n     provisions of  any law  made by  Parliament under\tsuch
\n     clauses (a) and (b) of clause (7).\n<\/p>\n
     Clause l 5 of Article 22 reads as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
719<\/span><\/p>\n
\t  “(5) When  any person\t is detained in pursuance of
\n     an order  made under  any law  providing for preventive
\n     detention ,  the authority making the order shall ,  as
\n     soon as  may be  ,\t  communicate  to  such\t person\t the
\n     grounds on\t which the  order has  been made  and  shall
\n     afford  him   the\tearliest  opportunity  of  making  a
\n     representation against the order’.\n<\/p>\n
Clause (6)  provides that  nothing clause  (5) shall require
\nthe authority  making any  such order  as is  referred to in
\nthat clause to disclose facts which such authority considers
\nto be against the public interest to disclose. Clause (7) of
\nArticle 2?.  ensures that  the Parliament  may make  law  in
\ncertain manner prescribed in that sub-clause.\n<\/p>\n
     Therefore it  was contended  that the order and grounds
\nshould be  communicated to  the detenus\t in the languages or
\nlanguage they  understood. According  to  the  petitioner  ,
\nVenilal Mehta  understood nothing except Gujrati. He did not
\nunderstand English  or Hindi  or Malayalam.  The grounds  of
\ndetention  were\t initially  supplied  to  Venilal  Mehta  in
\nEnglish on  25th June  ,   1984 i.e. within five days of his
\narrest or  detention. But  certain accompanying documents in
\nMalayalam language  were supplied to him namely ,  item Nos.
\n1 ,  6 ,  8 ,  27 ,  38 and 47.\n<\/p>\n
     Sub-section (3)  of section 3 of the s lid Act provides
\nas follows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t  “For the  purposes of\t clause (5) of Article 22 of
\n     the  Constitution\t,  the\tcommunication  to  a  person
\n     detained in  1 pursuance  of a  detention order  of the
\n     grounds on\t which the order has been made shall be made
\n     as soon as may be after the detention ,  but ordinarily
\n     not  later\t than  five  days  ,\tand  in\t exceptional
\n     circumstances and for reasons to be recorded in writing
\n     not later\tthan fifteen  days  ,\t from  the  date  of
\n     detention.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In the instant case it was submitted that assuming that
\nVenilal Mehta  knew Hindi  ,   the translated  copy  of\t the
\nEnglish grounds\t was admittedly\t made available\t to  him  in
\nHindi language\ton 30th June ,\t1984-beyond a period of five
\ndays and for which neither any excep-\n<\/p>\n
720<\/span><\/p>\n
tional circumstances  existed nor  an reason given. Moreover
\nit was\turged  that  the  annexures  in\t Malayalam  language
\nretained their places while supplying the translated copy of
\nthe grounds of detention in Hindi language. Therefore it was
\nurged that  there was  noncompliance with  the provisions of
\nthe Act.\n<\/p>\n
     It will  be appropriate  to deal with the first ground.
\nWhether the  grounds should  have been\tcommunicated in\t the
\nlanguage under\tstood by  the  detenus\t?  The\tConstitution
\nrequires that the grounds must be communicated. Therefore it
\nmust follow  as an  imperative\tthat  the  grounds  must  be
\ncommunicated  in   a  language\t understood  by\t the  person
\nconcerned so that he can make effective representation. Here
\nthe definite case of the petitioner’s father is that he does
\nnot understand\tEnglish or Hindi or Malayalam and does under
\nstand only  Gujrati language.  The facts  revealed that\t the
\ndetenu Venilal\twas constantly\taccompanied and\t was in\t the
\ncompany of  his daughter  as well  as son  both of them knew
\nEnglish very  well. The\t father signed a document in Gujrati
\nwhich was  written in English which is his mercy petition in
\nwhich he completely accepted the guilt of the involvement in
\nsmuggling. That document dated 30th June ,  1984 contained ,
\ninter alia  ,\t a  statement  “I  myself  am  surprised  to
\nunderstand what\t prompted me  to involve in such activity as
\ndealing in Imported Gold”. He further asked for mercy. There
\nis no  rule of\tlaw that  common sense should be put in cold
\nstorage\t while\tconsidering  constitutional  provisions\t for
\nsafeguards against  misuse of  powers by  authorities though
\nthese\tconstitutional\t provisions   should   be   strictly
\nconstrued. Bearing  this  salutary  principle  in  mind\t and
\nhaving regard  to the  conduct of  the detenu  Venilal Mehta
\nspecially in  the mercy\t petition and other communications ,
\nthe version  of the  detenu Venilal  is feigning lack of any
\nknowledge  of\tEnglish\t must\tbe  judged   in\t the  proper
\nperspective. He was ,  however ,  in any event given by 30th
\nJune ,\t 1984  the Hindi translation of the grounds of which
\nhe claimed  ignorance. The  gist of the annexures which were
\ngiven in  Malayalam language had been stated in the grounds.
\nThat he\t does not know anything except Gujrati is merely the
\nipse dixit of Venilal Mehta and is not the last word and the
\nCourt is  not denuded to its powers to examine the truth. He
\ngoes to\t the extent  that he  signed the  mercy petition not
\nknowing\t  the contents\t,  not understanding the same merely
\nbecause his  wife sent\tit though he was sixty years old and
\nhe was\tin business and he was writing at a time when he was
\nunder arrest ,
\n721<\/span>
\nhis room  had been  searched  ,\t   gold\t biscuits  had\tbeen
\nrecovered from\thim. Court  is not  the place  where one can
\nsell  all   tales.  The\t detaining  authority  came  to\t the
\nconclusion that\t he knew both Hindi and English. It has been
\nstated\tso   in\t the   affidavit  filed\t on  behalf  of\t the
\nrespondent. We\tare of\tthe opinion  that the detenu Venilal
\nMehta was merely feigning ignorance of English.\n<\/p>\n
\t    We may here notice the first decision upon which
\nreliance was  placed a\tdecision in the case of Harikisan v.
\nThe State  of Maharashtra & Others.(l) This Court reiterated
\nthat the  provisions of\t Article 22  (5) of the Constitution
\nrequired that  the grounds  should be  communicated  to\t the
\ndetenu as  soon as may be and that he should be afforded the
\nearliest opportunity  of making a representation against the
\norder.\tThis   Court  reiterated  that\tcommunication  meant
\nbringing home to the detenu effective knowledge of the facts
\nand the\t grounds on  which the\torder was based. To a person
\nwho was not conversant with the English language ,  in order
\nto satisfy the requirement of the Constitution ,  the detenu
\nmust be\t given grounds in a language which he can understand
\nand in\ta script  which he  can read  ,\t if he is a literate
\nperson\t,    in\t that  case  it\t was  held  that  mere\toral
\ntranslation at\tthe time  of the  service was not enough. In
\nthat case  the detenu was served with the order of detention
\nand the grounds in English. He did not know the language and
\nasked for a translation in Hindi. The request was refused on
\nthe ground  that the  grounds had  been orally translated to
\nhim at\tthe time these were served upon him and that English
\nwas still  being the  official language\t ,  communication of
\nthe order  and grounds in English was in accordance with the
\nlaw and\t the Constitution. This Court observed at pages 925-
\n926 of the report as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t  “If the  detained person  is conversant  with\t the
\n     English language  ,  he will naturally be in a position
\n     to understand  the gravamen  of the  charge against him
\n     and the  facts and\t circumstances on which the order of
\n     detention is  based. But  to a  person who\t is  not  so
\n     conversant with  the English  language ,\tin  order to
\n     satisfy the  requirements of  the Constitution  ,\t the
\n     detenu must be given the grounds in a language which he
\n     can understand ,  and in a script which
\n(1).[1982] 2 Supp. S.C.R. 918.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
722<\/span><\/p>\n
he can read ,  if he is a literate person.\n<\/p>\n
\t  The  Constitution   has  guaranteed\tfreedom\t  of
\n     movement throughout the territory of India and has laid
\n     down detailed  rules as to arrest and detention. It has
\n     also ,   by  way of  limitations upon  the\t freedom  of
\n     personal liberty  ,   recognised the right of the State
\n     to legislate  for preventive  detention ,\t subject  to
\n     certain safeguards\t in favour  of the detained person ,
\n     as laid  down in  cls.(4) & (5) of Art. 22 One of those
\n     safeguards is that the detained person has the right to
\n     be communicated  the grounds  on  which  the  order  of
\n     detention has been made against him ,  in order that he
\n     may be  able to  make his\trepresentation\tagainst\t the
\n     order  of\t detention.  In\t  our  opinion\t,    in\t the
\n     circumstances of  this case  ,   it has  not been shown
\n     that the appellant had the opportunity ,  which the law
\n     contemplates in  his favour  ,    making  an  effective
\n     representation against  his detention.  On this  ground
\n     alone ,  we declare his (I detention illegal ,  and set
\n     aside the\tOrder of  the High  Court and  the Order  of
\n     Detention passed against him.”\n<\/p>\n
\t  The principle is well-settled. But in this case it
\nhas to\tbe borne in mind that the grounds were given on 25th
\nJune ,\t 1984  following the  search  and  seizure  of\tgold
\nbiscuits from  his room\t in the hotel in his presence and in
\nthe background\tof the\tmercy petition\tas we have indicated
\nand he\twas in constant touch with his daughter and sons and
\nthere is no evidence that these people did not know Hindi or
\nEnglish. Indeed\t they knew  English as\twell as Hindi. It is
\ndifficult to  accept the position that in the peculiar facts
\nof this\t case the grounds were not communicated in the sense
\nthe grounds  of detention  were not  conveyed to  the detenu
\nVenilal. Whether  grounds were\tcommunicated or\t not depends
\nupon the facts and circumstances of each case.\n<\/p>\n
\t    As early as in 1968 ,  in the case of Hadibandhu
\nDase v.\t District Magistrate<\/a> ,\tCuttack & Anr.(1) this Court
\nwas concerned  with a  case where  on December\t15 ,  1967 ,
\nthe District  Magistrate ,  Cuttack had served an order made
\nin exercise  of power  under section  3(1) (a)\t(ii) of\t the
\nPreventive Detention Act directing that
\n(2) [1969] 1 S.C.R. 227.\n<\/p>\n
723<\/span><\/p>\n
appellant be  detained on  various grounds. On December 19 ,
\n1967 ,\t the  appellant filed  a petition  in the High Court
\nchallenging the\t order of  detention on the grounds ,  inter
\nalia ,\t that  the order  and the grounds in support thereof
\nserved upon  the  appellant  were  written  in\tthe  English
\nlanguage which\tthe appellant did not understand. On January
\n18 ,   1968  the  District  Magistrate\tsupplied  1  to\t the
\nappellant an Oriya translation of the order and the grounds.
\nOn January  28 ,   1968\t ,   the State of Orissa revoked the
\norder and issued a fresh order of detention.A translation of
\nthis order  in Oriya  was supplied  to\tthe  appellant.\t The
\nappellant  thereafter  submitted  a  supplementary  petition
\nchallenging the\t validity of  the order\t dated January\t28 ,
\n1968. The  High Court  of Orissa rejected the petition filed
\nby the\tappellant. There  was an  appeal to  this  Court  by
\ncertificate. It\t was held  that in  the facts of that case ,
\nthere was  no  proper  communication.  The  order  ran\tinto
\nfourteen typed pages. Mere oral explanation of such an order
\nwithout supplying  him a translation in a script or language
\nwhich he  understood ,\t amounted  to denial of the right of
\nbeing communicated  the grounds\t and of\t being afforded\t the
\nopportunity of\tmaking a  representation against  the order.
\nThe facts  in the instant case as mentioned hereinbefore are
\ndifferent.\n<\/p>\n
\t  In the case of Nainmal Partap Mal Shah v. Union of
\nIndia and  Others<\/a> (1)  ,  the detenu not conversant with the
\nEnglish\t language  was\tnot  supplied  with  the  translated
\nscript. It  was stated\tin opposition  that the grounds were
\nexplained to  the detenu  by the  prison  authorities.\tThis
\nCourt found  that who  explained it  was  not  stated.\tThis
\nexplanation was\t not correct  and as such there is no proper
\ncommunication. This  does not  help us\tin the facts of this
\ncase.\n<\/p>\n
\t  It is submitted in the instant case before us that
\nthe accompanying  documents were  supplied to  the detenu in
\nHindi on 30th June ,  1984 beyond a period of five days. For
\nthis there  were no exceptional circumstances nor any reason
\nhad  been   recorded.  Reliance\t  was  placed\ton   certain
\nobservations in\t the case of Ibrahim Ahmad Batti v. State of
\nGujarat &  Others.<\/a> (2) But again the facts of that case were
\nentirely different because in the instant case all the
\n(1)[1980] 4 S.C.C. 427.\n<\/p>\n
(2)[19831 1 S.C.R. 540.\n<\/p>\n
724<\/span><\/p>\n
factors were  pointed out  in the  grounds in  English which
\nVenilal understood.  His mercy\tpetition  corroborates\tthat
\nview. There  is no dispute that the other two detenus namely
\nPragna Mehta and Bharat Mehta knew English and Hindi. Indeed
\nno point of non communication of the grounds was made out in
\nrespect of them.\n<\/p>\n
\t     It\t was next  submitted that  the\tdetenus\t had
\nretracted the  alleged statements  by letters  dated 5th May
\nand 6th\t May ,\t 1984  addressed to the Collector ,  Central
\nExcise\tand  Customs.  While  the  statements  made  in\t the
\nconfession or  statements before the Collector under section
\n108 had\t been noted  in the  grounds of\t detention  ,\t the
\nretraction had\tnot been  noted. It  was submitted  that the
\nsaid retraction\t was bound  to influence  the  mind  of\t the
\ndetaining authority  one way or the other whether to make or
\nnot to\tmake the  detention order  and therefore  not taking
\nthis fact  into consideration  on or  about 19th\/20th June ,
\n1984 ,\t there\twas no\tapplication of mind. It is true that
\nretraction was not taken into consideration as it is evident
\nfrom the  order of  detention ,\t  thought  the retraction as
\nnoted here in before ,\twas considered before confirming the
\norder of  detention subsequently  after the  opinion of\t the
\nAdvisory Board.\n<\/p>\n
\t  Section 5A of the said Act which was introduced by
\namendment in 1975 reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t  ‘5A. Grounds of detention severable-Where a person
\n     has been detained in pursuance of an order of detention
\n     under sub-section\t(1) of section 3 which has been made
\n     on two or more grounds ,  such order of detention shall
\n     be deemed\tto have been made separately on each of such
\n     grounds and accordingly-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (a)  such order  shall not\t be deemed  to be invalid or
\n\t  inoperative merely  because one  or  some  of\t the
\n\t  grounds is or are-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (i) vague ,\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (ii) non-existent ,\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (iii) not relevant ,
\n725<\/span>
\n     (IV) not connected\t or not\t proximately connected\twith
\n     such person ,  or
\n     (V)  invalid for  any other reason whatsoever ,  and it
\n     is not  therefore possible\t to hold that the Government
\n     or officer\t making such order would have been satisfied
\n     as provided  in  sub-section  (l)\tof  section  3\twith
\n     reference to  the remaining  ground or grounds and made
\n     the order of detention;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (b)  the Government  or officer  making  the  order  of
\n\t  detention shall  be deemed  to have made the order
\n\t  of detention\tunder the  said sub-section  (\tI  )
\n\t  after being  satisfied as  provided in  ground  or
\n\t  that sub-section  with reference  to the remaining
\n\t  grounds.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t Section 5A stipulates that when the detention order
\nhas been  made on  two or  more grounds\t ,   ‘such order  of
\ndetention shall\t be deemed  to have  been made separately on
\neach of\t such grounds and accordingly that if one irrelevant
\nor one inadmissible ground had been taken into consideration
\nthat would not make the detention order bad.\n<\/p>\n
\t     Article  22 (5)  of the  Constitution  has\t two
\nelements: (i)  communication of\t the grounds  on  which\t the
\norder of detention has been made; (ii) opportunity of making
\na   representation   against   the   order   of\t  detention.
\nCommunication of the grounds pre-supposes the formulation of
\nthe grounds  and formulation  of the  grounds  requires\t and
\nensures\t the  application  of  the  mind  of  the  detaining
\nauthority to the facts and materials before it ,  that is to
\nsay ,\tto pertinent and proximate matters in regard to each
\nindividual case\t and excludes  the elements of arbitrariness
\nand automatism.\n<\/p>\n
\t      The  ‘grounds’  under  Article  22(5)  of\t the
\nConstitution do\t not mean  mere factual\t inferences but mean
\nmere factual  inferences plus  factual material which led to
\nsuch factual inferences. See the
\n726<\/span>
\nobservations of\t this Court in the case of Smt. Shalini Soni
\nEtc v. Union of India- & Ors. Etc.<\/a>(1)
\n\t     As\t has been  said by  Benjamin Cardozo  ,\t  “A
\nConstitution states  or ought  to state\t not rules  for\t the
\npassing hour ,\tbut principles for an expanding future”. The
\nconcept of  “grounds” ,\t  has to therefore ,  has to receive
\nan interpretation  which will  keep it\tmeaningfully in tune
\nwith the  contemporary\tnotions\t of  the  realities  of\t the
\nsociety and  the purpose of the Act in question in the light
\nof concepts  of liberty\t and fundamental freedoms guaranteed
\nby Article  19 (1)  ,\t 21  and  22  of  the  Constitution.
\nReviewing several  decisions in\t the  case  of\tHasmukh\t S\/o
\nBhagwanti M.  Patel v.\tThe State of Gujarat & Others. , (2)
\nthis Court  held that a democratic Constitution is not to be
\ninterpreted merely  from a  lexicographer’s angle but with a
\nrealisation that  it is an embodiment of the living thoughts
\nand aspirations\t of a  free people. The concept of ‘grounds’
\nused in\t the context  of detention  in Article\t22(5) of the
\nConstitution and in sub-section (3) of section 3 of COFFPOSA
\n,   therefore ,\t has to receive an interpretation which will
\nkeep it\t meaningfully in  tune with  a contemporary notions.
\nWhile the  expression “grounds”  for that  matters includes
\nnot only  conclusions of fact but also all the “basic facts”
\non  which  those  conclusions  were  founded  ,\t   they\t are
\ndifferent from\tsubsidiary facts  or further  particulars or
\nthe basic facts.\n<\/p>\n
\t   In the instant case ,  the ground of detention is
\nthe satisfaction of the detaining authority that with a view
\nto  preventing\t the  detenu   from  acting  in\t any  manner
\nprejudicial to\tthe conservation  or augmentation of foreign
\nexchange or  with a  view to  preventing the  detenu from  ,
\ninter alia  ,\tdealing in  smuggled goods otherwise than by
\nengaging  in  transporting  or\tconcealing  or\tkeeping\t the
\nsmuggled goods\t,  or engaging in transporting or concealing
\nor keeping  smuggled goods  the detention  of the  detenu is
\nnecessary. This\t satisfaction was  arrived at  as inferences
\nfrom several  factors. These have been separately mentioned.
\nOne of them is the contention but this ground was taken into
\nconsideration without  taking note  of the  retraction\tmade
\nthereafter. But\t the inference of the satisfaction was drawn
\nfrom several  factors which have been enumerated before.  We
\nhave to examine whether even if the facts
\n(1) [1981] S.C.R. 962.\n<\/p>\n
(2) [1981] 1 S.C.R. 353.\n<\/p>\n
727<\/span><\/p>\n
stated in  the confession are completely ignored ,  then the
\ninferences can\tstill be  drawn from  other independent\t and
\nobjective facts mentioned in this case ,  namely the fact of
\nseizure after  search of  60 gold biscuits from the suitcase
\nof  the\t daughter  in  the  presence  of  the  father  which
\nindubitably belonged  to the  father and  admitted by him to
\nbelong to  him for  which no explanation has been given\t and
\nsecondly the  seizure of  the papers  connected\t with  other
\ngroups and organisations Pratap Sait and others to whom gold
\nhas been  sold by the father are relevant grounds from which
\nan inference can reasonably be drawn for the satisfaction of
\nthe detaining  authority for  detaining the  detenu for\t the
\npurpose of  section 3(1)  (iii) and 3(1) (IV). We are of the
\nopinion that  the impugned order cannot be challenged merely
\nby the rejection of the inference drawn from confession. The
\nsame argument  was presented  in a  little  different  shade
\nnamely the fact or retraction should have been considered by
\nthe detaining  authority and  the Court\t does  not know that
\nhad that  been taken  into consideration  ,  what conclusion
\nthe  detaining\t authority  would   have  arrived  at.\tThis
\ncontention cannot be accepted. We are not concerned with the
\nsufficiency of\tthe grounds.  We are concerned whether there
\nare relevant  materials on  which  a  reasonable  belief  or
\nconviction could  have been  entertained  by  the  detaining
\nauthority on  the grounds  mentioned in\t section 3(1) of the
\nsaid Act.  Whether other  ground should have been taken into
\nconsideration or  not is  not relevant\tat the\tstage of the
\npassing of the detention order. This contention ,  therefore
\n,   cannot be accepted. If that is the position then in view
\nof section  5A of  the Act  there was sufficient material to
\nsustain this ground of detention.\n<\/p>\n
\t     In\t the case  of State  of Gujarat v. Chamanlal
\nManjibhai Soni<\/a>\t, (1) this Court maintained the order of the
\nHigh Court  quashing the detention. This Court observed that
\ndetention under\t section 3  of the  Act\t was  only  for\t the
\npurpose of  preventing\tsmuggling  and\tall  the  grounds  ,
\nwhether there  are one or more ,  would be relatable Only to
\nvarious activities of smuggling and no other separate ground
\nwhich could  deal with matters other than smuggling could be
\nconceived of  because the  Act of  smuggling covered several
\nactivities each\t forming a  separate ground of detention and
\nthe Act\t dealt with  no other act except smuggling. Whenever
\nallegations of
\n(1) [l981] 2 S.C.R. 500.\n<\/p>\n
728<\/span>
\n729<\/span><\/p>\n
the  custody  of  the  Customs\tOfficers  ,    his  advocate
\naddressed a  letter and\t sent a\t telegram to them protesting
\nagainst his  detention and  illegal custody  beyond 24 hours
\nand also  expressing  an  apprehension\tthat  he  was  being
\ndetained with a view to obtain confessional statements under
\nduress. It  was admitted  that the  advocate’s\trequest\t for
\npermission to remain present at the time of interrogation of
\nthe detenu  was turned\tdown by\t the Customs  Officers.\t The
\nadvocate was  also told\t that the  detenu would\t be produced
\nbefore a  Magistrate on\t the day of request but that was not
\ndone. He  was produced on the following day and was remanded
\nto judicial  custody permitting\t further interrogation while
\nin judicial  custody ,\t the  detenu  refused  to  sign\t the
\nfurther statements  and squarely resiled. While the detenu’s
\napplication for\t bail was  pending before  the Magistrate  ,
\nthe respondent\tpassed the impugned order. In petition under
\nArt. 226  of the  Constitution for  the issue  of a  writ of
\nhabeas corpus  ,   the appellant contended that the order of
\nthe detaining  authority was  liable to be set aside because
\nfull facts  of\tthe  case  were\t not  intimated\t before\t the
\ndetention order\t was passed  ,\t and therefore\t,  there was
\ncomplete non-application  of mind of the detaining authority
\nto the\tattendant vital\t circumstances. It was held that the
\nimpugned order\twas invalid  and illegal  because there\t was
\ncomplete  non-application  of  the  mind  of  the  detaining
\nauthority to  the most\tmaterial and  vital  facts.  In\t the
\ninstant\t case  before  us  ,\tthere  was  no\trequest\t for
\nconsultation with  the advocate.  There is  no case  of non-
\nproduction in  spite of\t intimation by\tthe advocate  to the
\nCustoms\t officers  before  a  Magistrate.  The\tconfessional
\nstatements of course ,\twere retracted. But in this case the
\nconfessional statements was not the only fact upon which the
\ndetaining authority  had passed\t an order.  In the  premises
\neven if\t the confessional statements which were retracted as
\nsuch could  not be  taken into\tconsideration ,\t  there\t are
\nother facts  independent of  the confessional  statement  as
\nmentioned hereinbefore\twhich can  reasonably  lead  to\t the
\nsatisfaction that the authorities have come to.\n<\/p>\n
     The contention  on behalf of the detenus that there was
\ndelay in serving the grounds upon the detenus has been dealt
\nwith. There  is no  substance in  the contention  in view of
\nwhat is stated hereinbefore .\n<\/p>\n
     So far  as the ground that the detenus were not allowed
\nto be  represented properly  before the Advisory Board? from
\nthe facts
\n730<\/span>
\nnarrated in affidavit in opposition where it has been stated
\nthat services  of Dr.  S.C. Purohit  ,\t Senior Scientist  ,
\nV.S.S C.  Thumba ,   Trivandrum\t and Dr.  Mrs. Purohit\twere
\navailable to  the detenu  to translate the statements of the
\ndetenu to  the Advisory\t Board. The  detenu was\t detained on
\n20th June ,  1984. As required under section 8(3) of the Act
\n,  the case of the detenu was referred to the Advisory Board
\nin  Government\t letter\t  dated\t  18th\t July.\t 1984.\t The
\nrepresentations submitted  by the detenu were also forwarded
\nto the Advisory Board for its consideration. The services of
\nthe two\t persons mentioned  here in  before were utilised by
\nthe Board  in understanding  the statement of the detenu and
\ndeciphreing the\t representation in Gujarati submitted by the
\ndetenu ,   Venilal  Mehta to the State\tGovernment which was
\nalso forwarded\tto the Board. Therefore ,  it has  cannot be
\nsaid that  detenus have not been given proper facility to be
\nrepresented before  the Advisory  Board. The contention that
\nthe fact  that there  was retraction  of the  confession not
\nhaving been taken into consideration had vitiated orders has
\nbeen dealt  with. The  allegation or the submission that the
\ndetaining  authority  did  not\tindependently  consider\t the
\nrepresentation of  the detenu  put mechanically followed the
\nopinion of the Advisory Board cannot be sustained in view of
\nthe facts and circumstances of this case.\n<\/p>\n
     In this  case there was evidence before the authorities
\nconcerned that\t60 gold\t biscuits of  foreign origin without
\nany explanation\t of their  importation\twere  found  in\t the
\npossession of  the father-that\tis undisputed. Venilal could
\nnot give any explanation of their being in there possession.
\nThese were  smuggled. Secondly ,  there was evidence in view
\nof the subsequent other facts independent of the confessions
\nof the\tfather and the sons and the daughter that the father
\nwas in\tcontact with  persons who  were buying smuggled gold
\nfrom him  and buying  at high prices. Their telephone number
\nwere found  and they  could be\tidentified from\t the  papers
\nseized during  the search  at  his  hotel  room\t The  detenu
\nVenilal made a mercy petition-\n<\/p>\n
     As\t the  statement\t of  objects  and  reasons  of\t1975
\nAmending  Act  state  that  smuggling  of  foreign  exchange
\nracketeering and  related activities have a deterious effect
\non the national economy and thereby a serious adverse effect
\non the security of State. The society must be protected from
\nthat social menace by immobilizing
\n731<\/span>
\nthe persons  by detention  of the  persons engaged  in those
\noperations and\tto disrupt  the\t machinery  established\t for
\nfurthering  smuggling  and  foreign  exchange  manipulations
\n(Statement of  objects and  reasons of 1975 Act). Preventive
\ndetention unlike  punitive detention  which is to punish for
\nthe wrong  done ,   is\tto protect the society by preventing
\nwrong being done. Though such powers must be very cautiously
\nexercised  not\t to  undermine\t the  fundamental   freedoms
\nguaranteed to our people ,  the procedural safeguards are to
\nensure that yet these must be looked at from a pragmatic and
\ncommonsense point  of view.  The exercise  of the  power  of
\npreventive detention  must be strictly within the safeguards
\nprovided. We  are  governed  by\t the  Constitution  and\t our
\nConstitution embodies  a particular philosophy of Government
\nand  a\t way  of   life\t and   that   necessarily   requires
\nunderstanding between  those who  exercise  powers  and\t the
\npeople over  whom or  in  respect  of  whom  such  power  is
\nexercised. The purpose of exercise of all such powers by the
\nGovernment must\t be to promote common well-being and must be
\nto sub-serve  the common good. It is necessary to be protect
\ntherefore the  individual rights  in so\t far as\t practicable
\nwhich arc  not inconsistent with the security and well-being
\nof the society. Grant of power imposes limitation on the Use
\nof the power. There are various procedural safeguards and we
\nmust construe  those in\t proper\t light\tand  from  pragmatic
\ncommonsense point  of view. We must remember that observance
\nof written  law about  the  procedural\tsafeguards  for\t the
\nprotection of  the individual  is normally  the high duty of
\npublic official\t but in\t all circumstances  not the highest.
\nThe law\t of self  preservation and protection of the country
\nand national  security may  claim in  certain  circumstances
\nhigher priority.\n<\/p>\n
     As has  bean said\tby Thomas  Jefferson  “To  lose\t our
\ncountry by a scrupulous adherence to written law ,  would be
\nto lose\t itself ,   with life ,\t liberty ,  property and all
\nthose who  are enjoying\t them  with  us\t ,    thus  absurdly
\nsacrificing the\t end  to  the  means”  (Thomas\tJefferson  ,
\nWritings (Washington  ed) ,  V. 542-545 and The Constitution
\nBetween friends\t by Loutis  Fisher  47).  By  the  aforesaid
\napproach both  justice and power can by brought together and
\nwhatever is  just  may\tbe  powerful  and  whatever  may  by
\npowerful may be just
\n732<\/span>
\n\t In the background of the facts and circumstances of
\nthis case  the procedural safeguards have been complied with
\nas far\tas practicable.\t There are  no merits in the fancied
\ngrievances of  the detenus.  In that  view of  the matter  ,
\nthese petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
 A.P.J.\t\t\t\t\tPetitions dismissed.\n733<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Prakash Chandra Mehta vs Commissioner And Secretary … on 12 April, 1985 Equivalent citations: 1986 AIR 687, 1985 SCR (3) 697 Author: S Mukharji Bench: Mukharji, Sabyasachi (J) PETITIONER: PRAKASH CHANDRA MEHTA Vs. RESPONDENT: COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KERALA & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT12\/04\/1985 BENCH: MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J) BENCH: MUKHARJI, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-185103","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nPrakash Chandra Mehta vs Commissioner And Secretary ... on 12 April, 1985 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakash-chandra-mehta-vs-commissioner-and-secretary-on-12-april-1985\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Prakash Chandra Mehta vs Commissioner And Secretary ... on 12 April, 1985 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakash-chandra-mehta-vs-commissioner-and-secretary-on-12-april-1985\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1985-04-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-06-13T04:30:19+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"64 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prakash-chandra-mehta-vs-commissioner-and-secretary-on-12-april-1985#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prakash-chandra-mehta-vs-commissioner-and-secretary-on-12-april-1985\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Prakash Chandra Mehta vs Commissioner And Secretary … on 12 April, 1985\",\"datePublished\":\"1985-04-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-13T04:30:19+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prakash-chandra-mehta-vs-commissioner-and-secretary-on-12-april-1985\"},\"wordCount\":11213,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prakash-chandra-mehta-vs-commissioner-and-secretary-on-12-april-1985#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prakash-chandra-mehta-vs-commissioner-and-secretary-on-12-april-1985\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prakash-chandra-mehta-vs-commissioner-and-secretary-on-12-april-1985\",\"name\":\"Prakash Chandra Mehta vs Commissioner And Secretary ... on 12 April, 1985 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1985-04-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-13T04:30:19+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prakash-chandra-mehta-vs-commissioner-and-secretary-on-12-april-1985#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prakash-chandra-mehta-vs-commissioner-and-secretary-on-12-april-1985\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prakash-chandra-mehta-vs-commissioner-and-secretary-on-12-april-1985#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Prakash Chandra Mehta vs Commissioner And Secretary … on 12 April, 1985\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Prakash Chandra Mehta vs Commissioner And Secretary ... on 12 April, 1985 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakash-chandra-mehta-vs-commissioner-and-secretary-on-12-april-1985","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Prakash Chandra Mehta vs Commissioner And Secretary ... on 12 April, 1985 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakash-chandra-mehta-vs-commissioner-and-secretary-on-12-april-1985","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1985-04-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-06-13T04:30:19+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"64 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakash-chandra-mehta-vs-commissioner-and-secretary-on-12-april-1985#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakash-chandra-mehta-vs-commissioner-and-secretary-on-12-april-1985"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Prakash Chandra Mehta vs Commissioner And Secretary … on 12 April, 1985","datePublished":"1985-04-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-13T04:30:19+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakash-chandra-mehta-vs-commissioner-and-secretary-on-12-april-1985"},"wordCount":11213,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakash-chandra-mehta-vs-commissioner-and-secretary-on-12-april-1985#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakash-chandra-mehta-vs-commissioner-and-secretary-on-12-april-1985","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakash-chandra-mehta-vs-commissioner-and-secretary-on-12-april-1985","name":"Prakash Chandra Mehta vs Commissioner And Secretary ... on 12 April, 1985 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1985-04-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-13T04:30:19+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakash-chandra-mehta-vs-commissioner-and-secretary-on-12-april-1985#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakash-chandra-mehta-vs-commissioner-and-secretary-on-12-april-1985"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakash-chandra-mehta-vs-commissioner-and-secretary-on-12-april-1985#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Prakash Chandra Mehta vs Commissioner And Secretary … on 12 April, 1985"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/185103","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=185103"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/185103\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=185103"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=185103"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=185103"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}