A.C. Razia vs Government of Kerala & Ors. Supreme Court, 07-05-2003

CourtSupreme Court (India)
JudgeS. RAJENDRA BABU.
Parties A.C. RaziaGovernment of Kerala & Ors.
Docket NumberSpecial Leave Petition (crl.) 153 of 2003
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4
CASE NO.:
Special Leave Petition (crl.) 153 of 2003
PETITIONER:
A.C. Razia
RESPONDENT:
Government of Kerala & Ors.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/05/2003
BENCH:
S. RAJENDRA BABU.
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
(arising out of S.L.P.(CRIMINAL) No. 153 of 2003)
(WITH WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 6 OF 2003)
RAJENDRA BABU, J. :
Leave granted.
The appellant’s husband has been detained under Sections 3(1)(i),
3(1)(ii), 3(1)(iii) and 3(1)(iv) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and
Preservation of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA Act) on 24/6/2002
vide detention Order dated 19/4/2001. The detenu was duly served with the
Order of detention along with the grounds of detention and other relevant
documents in the Central Jail Trivandrum, where he was detained. It is submitted
that these documents were voluminous which is running to more than four
hundred pages. Later he was also supplied with an Order in original dated
16/5/2002, which is about twenty pages.
On 13/7/2002 appellant made a representation in regional language
(Malayalam) to the detaining authority and to the Central Government. Both
these representations were rejected on 30/7/2002 and 29/7/2002 respectively.
The case of detenu was referred to the Advisory Board and on the basis of this
report the Government has confirmed the detention order on 6/9/2002. Later, a
writ petition was filed before the Kerala High Court by the appellant herein
seeking the relief of her husband and on being dismissed, the appellant urging
the same relief has filed a writ petition before us as well as special leave petition
challenging the order of the High Court.
The definite case of the appellant before us is that representation sent to
the Central Government was in Malayalam and no English translation of the
same was made available to the Central government. It is also submitted that
even the documents forming the basis of the Order of detention was in
Malayalam and had not been translated into English for the proper appreciation
by the Central Government. And since there is nothing on record to show that the
concerned officer who dealt with the representation knew Malayalam, the same
was not considered in the manner contemplated under the Constitution and
COFEPOSA Act. Therefore, it is argued that the detention is vitiated.
On behalf of the State Government it is argued that the consideration of
the representation by the Authority and the Government is different. It is also
submitted that there is no need to furnish translation of all the documents relating
to detention to the Central Government. The Union of India contended that it is
not relevant in the context of section 3(2) of the COFEPOSA Act, whether the
State Government forwards the relied upon documents to the Central
Government or not. Since there is no provision in the COFEPOSA Act for
approval of the order of detention by the Central Government, all that the Central
Government is to do is to apply its mind for the purpose of taking a decision
whether it is necessary to interfere with the order of detention by way of

To continue reading

Request your trial