1987 (2) TMI 333

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... The order was passed by the Government of Uttar Pradesh under Section 3(1) of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. The detention was ordered with a view to preventing the detenu from smuggling of goods and engaging in transporting, concealing and keeping smuggled goods. 3. Before I take up for consideration the contentions raised by Mr. Mathur, a brief reference may be made to the incident that ultimately culminated in the passing of the said detention order. On 22nd June 1986 at about 4.30 hours the Customs Officers of Basti signalled a tourist bus number DEP 7788 to stop near the bridge over river Kakrahi on Basti-Naugarh Road. The bus was coming from Nepal. On failure of the driver to st....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... simple reason that if this fact had been brought to the notice of the detaining authority this might have affected its decision to pass the detention order. In this regard reliance is placed on S.K. Nizamuddin v. State of West Bengal (AIR 1974 SC 2353). 5. Next, Mr. Mathur contended that the detenu is a Tibetan and is not properly educated and the only language he understands is Tibetan while the material supplied to him is all in Hindi and English. The contention is that in this way he has been deprived of making an effective and purposeful representation. It is submitted that this matter was taken up on 5th September 1986 when he first made the representation to the detaining authority. 6. Adverting to the first contention it may b....