Mundakkal Parakandathil Ibrahim vs The State of Maharashtra and Others

Desai, J.—The detenu before us is one Mundakkal Parakandathil Ibrahim and his detention is in connection with gold found with his luggage in November, 1987, when he arrived from Dubai at Bombay. When the said luggage was examined one children''s toy car was seized. When that car was examined carefully it was found that strips of gold were fixed to the said car. They were sought to be concealed by being painted over. When the paint was scratched off, the yellow metal came to light. The gold was weighed at 1625 gms. According to the customs authorities and as mentioned in the grounds of detention, at International market the value was Rs. 3,00,625.00 and local market value was Rs. 6,17,500/-.

The statement of the detenu was recorded. The detenu was thereafter arrested. From time to time applications for bail were made. Bail which was initially fixed at Rs. 1,00,000.00 was subsequently reduced. It would appear that the detenu availed of the reduced bail a little later on i.e. in December, 1987, or January, 1988, the exact date is not given to us. In April, 1988, a show-cause notice under the Customs Act was issued to the detenu. Towards the end of May, 1988, the Collector of Customs as the Sponsoring authority made a proposal to the State of Maharashtra for the detention of the petitioner under Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. After due consideration the order of detention was passed on 4th August, 1988. In pursuance of the said order the detenu was actually detained on 3rd September, 1988. The detenu, not being conversant with English, the order and grounds of detention and companion documents together with translation in Malayalam were served on the detenu.

We have given the facts briefly as the details are not important. It was the case of the detenu that he had been given these goods by one Mohamed at Dubai and the same were to be delivered to one Rahim at Bombay. For this purpose the detenu was given, according to the detenu, a free air ticket from Dubai to Bombay and Rs. 500/- which he spent at Dubai. The detenu further contended that he was without any job at Dubai for six months. He had, therefore to come back to India and at this stage this philanthropic Mohamed came with the offer of help viz. by giving free air ticket to Bombay and Rs. 500/- for which he had to carry some goods and deliver them to Rahim.

It is needless to add that although efforts were made to find out this Rahim, these efforts proved futile.

Although a number of grounds have been taken in the writ petition most of them are the usual technical grounds which arc not pressed before us. There are three grounds which were pressed by the learned advocate appearing for the detenu and we are required, therefore, to consider the same.

In the first place it is alleged that there is a delay of eight months and ten days in passing the detention order. To this ground No. (viii) the necessary reply for the apparent delay has been given in the affidavit of the Secretary to the Government. In para 8 of his affidavit in reply, he has indicated that the proposal was sent to him on 26th May, 1988. He has explained the procedure followed thereafter till 2nd August, 1988. According to him, he had raised, apart from the question of translations, certain queries and these queries were answered and sent back to him on 2nd August, 1988. In our opinion the time taken between May and August will have to be accepted as sufficient explanation has been given for this time interval. The detaining authority is not expected to put a rubber stamp on the proposal submitted to him and if the detaining authority says that he had raised some queries which were to be gone into and the answers were to be received, the statement must normally be accepted. The question, therefore, to be considered is whether we can say that there is any unexplained delay between 25th November, 1987, and 26th May, 1988. Here again it is found that the Show-cause notice which is one of the documents considered by the detaining authority was issued in April, 1987. The show-cause notice contains in a way the customs case against (sic) to forward the proposal before issuing the show cause notice, then a possible contention could have been raised that the proposal is premature. In the instant case, we are of the opinion that the sponsoring authority could not be said to have been guilty of any laches or gross delay in forwarding the proposal only after preparing the show-cause notice and attempting to serve it on the detenu. Of course, the detenu has alleged that the show-cause notice was not served on him so that he could not reply to the same. This has been repelled by the statement of the Secretary in his affidavit that the show-cause notice was sent to the detenu at his given address by registered A.D. Post, one copy of the same was also put up on the notice board of the Custom House.

On considering the facts and circumstances brought out for our consideration we arc satisfied that there is not such delay in the matter that would require the release of the detenu on that ground.

Another ground urged is as regards the difference in valuation. According to the writ petition the rate of gold on the date of seizure was Rs. 3,775.00 for 10 gms, in local market value and hence the value of the gold seized viz. 1626 gms. would come to Rs. 6,03,500.00 rather than the value mentioned in the grounds of detention. The difference of about Rs. 14,0001- cannot be regarded as substantial and it is not possible to accept that there was any over-valuation or deliberate over-valuation or such over-valuation as would be capable of affecting the discretion of the detaining authority.

In the third place it has been alleged that there is no certificate of analysis or assay to show that the metal strips were gold and of a particular quality or fineness. We find from the material particularly from the applications for bail as also from the perusal of the statement of the detenu under Section-108 that this fact has not been disputed at all. When a carrier, innocent or otherwise, accepts that the metal carried by him is gold, can he later on come out with a contention that a certificate of analysis ought to have been obtained and a copy thereof served on him. In our opinion, the ground cannot be accepted on the factual aspects of this case.

It is alleged that this was a single and solitary incident. There is no bar for making detention order only on the basis of a single and solitary incident. The copy of the passport of the detenu shows that prior to this visit in November, 1987, the detenu had arrived at Sahar Airport in January, 1987, and departed (presumably for Dubai) in June, 1987. This speaks a lot, in a practical sense, about his protestations of innocence.

Considering the entire story it is not possible to hold in this case that the detention was unjustified or that the conclusions of the detaining authority were perverse or that there are any such technical infirmities which would require the quashing of the order of detention. In the result, the Rule will stand discharged. Order accordingly.