TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether omission of the word "engaging" in the detention order while referring to activity of keeping and concealing smuggled goods vitiated the order under section 3(1)(iii) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. (ii) Whether the Marathi translation of the grounds of detention, especially paragraph 36, was faithful and enabled an effective representation. (iii) Whether the Marathi translation of the declaration under section 9(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 was faithful and valid.
Issue (i): Whether omission of the word "engaging" in the detention order while referring to activity of keeping and concealing smuggled goods vitiated the order under section 3(1)(iii) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974.
Analysis: Section 3(1)(iii) applies only where the detaining authority is satisfied that detention is necessary to prevent a person from engaging in transporting, concealing, or keeping smuggled goods. The expression "engaging" was treated as a significant and deliberate limitation, denoting habitual or continuous involvement rather than a stray act. The wording used in the detention order conveyed a materially different meaning and could not be saved by reference to presumed intention. Section 5-A did not apply because it concerns grounds of detention and not the validity of the detention order itself.
Conclusion: The detention order was vitiated on this ground and was against the respondent authority.
Issue (ii): Whether the Marathi translation of the grounds of detention, especially paragraph 36, was faithful and enabled an effective representation.
Analysis: Where translations are furnished, the detenu is entitled to rely on them. A translation need not be literal in every respect, but it must convey the correct sense of the original. The translation of paragraph 36 omitted the word "engaged" and used expressions that did not faithfully reflect the English text. The defect was material because it altered the legal sense of the grounds and impaired the detenu's ability to make an effective representation under the constitutional safeguard.
Conclusion: The translation of the grounds was defective and the challenge succeeded in favour of the petitioner.
Issue (iii): Whether the Marathi translation of the declaration under section 9(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 was faithful and valid.
Analysis: The same standard of faithful communication applied to the declaration. The omission of the word "engaged" in relation to concealing and keeping smuggled goods was treated as material, since it affected the import of the declaration served on the detenu. A defective translation of the declaration also undermined the detenu's ability to understand and answer the case against him.
Conclusion: The translation of the declaration was not faithful and supported quashing of the detention order.
Final Conclusion: The detention order could not stand because the language used in the order and the translations supplied to the detenu did not accurately convey the statutory basis and grounds of detention, thereby defeating the safeguard of effective representation.
Ratio Decidendi: In preventive detention matters, strict compliance with the statutory language and constitutional safeguards is essential, and omission of a material qualifying expression such as "engaging" from the detention order or its supplied translations can vitiate the detention.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
