# PRAKASH CHANDRA MEHTA v. CO'vlMISSlONER AND SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KERALA & ORS - **Citation:** [1985] 3 S.C.R. 697 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1985-04-12 - **Bench:** S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, A. Varadarajan, Sabyasachi Mukharji - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/prakash-chandra-mehta-v-co-vlmissloner-and-secretary-government-of-kerala-ors-8992 - **Pages:** 36 ## Headnote Constitution of India 1950, Ait, 22. c/J. (4) & (5)-Preventive detentionB c PermisJibilityof-Safeguards to be followed by the detaining authority-Rights of D detenu-What are-"Grounds" for detention-What are. Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act 1914, SS. 3 and 5A-Detentlon-G,rounds of detention-Communication in a language understood by the deteml at the earliest-Afford the detenu an opportunity to 111ake a representation-Co11fession statementJ under s. 108 of the Customs Act E /962-Retraction by detenu-Non-consideration by detaining authority but considered hy AdVisory Board-Whether vitiates detention. Words & Phrases -Meaning of: "Grounds"-Content of in detention order-Nat 1nere factual inferences but factual in]erences plus factual »Jaterial-Constitution of India, 1950, Article 22(5). ' F The petitioner in his three -writ petitiono; under Art. 32 cha11e_nged the detention orders made against his father, sister and brother under the Conservation of Foreign -Exchange and Prevenlion of Smuggling Activities Act, 1~ G On the ba<::is of intelligi!nce rePorts, the customs officials searched the room of the Hotel where father and daughter-Vcnilal D. Mehta and Pragna Mehta were staying. The search led to the recovery of 60 gold biscuits of Foreign origin from the suit case belon!.;,ing to the daughter. Since both of thetn }lad no Vfl.lid' document'! to prove ihe natur..: Qf import of the e;old biscuits to Q 698 SUPREME COURT 1EPORTS (1985] 3 S.C.R. A India and for their tegal possession, thC're was contravention of the Customs Act, 1962 and the Gold Control Act, 1960, and, therefore, liable for confisca. tioti. Both were arrested and statements recorded. c D E F G In the meanwhile Bharat Mehta, another son of the father,-detenu \\'ho had come from Calcutta to arrange for bail was arrested on 4th May 1984 by the Central Excise and Customs Officials after his room in the Hotel, was sear· ched and Indian currency notes amounting to Rs. 24,865 were seized, which he allegedly had brought for meeting the legal expenses for securing release of his father and sister on bail. All the three were remar.ded to jail custody. They retracted their staten1ents made before the Central Excise and Customs Officers alleging that they were made a t·the dictates of the customs officers. Pragna Mehta w2s served with a detention order under the Conservati.on of Eoreign Exchange and ·Prevention of. Smuggling Activitit:s .Act 1974 under s. 3(1) (iii) on 20th June 1984 and was serv:d with the grounds of detention in English language. Hindi translation of the grounds of detention was served on 30th June. 1984. Venilal Mehta and his son Bharat Mehta were served wi.th detention orders under s. 3(1) (iii) and (iv) of the Act on 20th June, 1984 and on 25th June, 1984 the ground.:; of detention were also served on them. The grounds of detention were in English language . while some of the 11ccqmpanying documents were in Malayalam. Th~ detenus made representations for the revo~ cntion of their detention. They appeared before the Advisory Roard on 6th Augu')t, 1984. The Advisory Board reported that th·~re was sufficient cause for detention of the detenus and accordingly the Govt. confirmed their detention Orders on 13th August, 1984. All the three detention orders have been challenged contendihg : (J) that the grounds were not communicated to the detenus in a language understood by them, (2) that the retraction of the confessions or 'statements made under s. 108 of the Custom" Act, 1962 had not been taken into consideration, (3) that there was delay in serving the grounds upon the detenus, (4) that the detenus were not allowed to be represented properly before the Advisory Board, (5) that the fact of retr.ilction of the confessions having not been taken into oonsideration the proceedings were vitiated, and (6) that the detaining authcirity did not independently con<:ider the repr!~!'lt:.ttions of the d-:t!nu'i but mechanically f ## Text _Characters 0–39,992 of 81,961. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39992 for what follows._ PRAKASH CHANDRA MEHTA v. CO'vlMISSlONER AND SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KERALA & ORS. 12th April, 1985 697 [S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, A. VARADARAJAN AND SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, JJ.] Constitution of India 1950, Ait, 22. c/J. (4) & (5)-Preventive detentionB c PermisJibilityof-Safeguards to be followed by the detaining authority-Rights of D detenu-What are-"Grounds" for detention-What are. Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act 1914, SS. 3 and 5A-Detentlon-G,rounds of detention-Communication in a language understood by the deteml at the earliest-Afford the detenu an opportunity to 111ake a representation-Co11fession statementJ under s. 108 of the Customs Act E /962-Retraction by detenu-Non-consideration by detaining authority but considered hy AdVisory Board-Whether vitiates detention. Words & Phrases -Meaning of: "Grounds"-Content of in detention order-Nat 1nere factual inferences but factual in]erences plus factual »Jaterial-Constitution of India, 1950, Article 22(5). ' F The petitioner in his three -writ petitiono; under Art. 32 cha11e_nged the detention orders made against his father, sister and brother under the Conservation of Foreign -Exchange and Prevenlion of Smuggling Activities Act, 1~ G On the ba<::is of intelligi!nce rePorts, the customs officials searched the room of the Hotel where father and daughter-Vcnilal D. Mehta and Pragna Mehta were staying. The search led to the recovery of 60 gold biscuits of Foreign origin from the suit case belon!.;,ing to the daughter. Since both of thetn }lad no Vfl.lid' document'! to prove ihe natur..: Qf import of the e;old biscuits to Q 698 SUPREME COURT 1EPORTS (1985] 3 S.C.R. A India and for their tegal possession, thC're was contravention of the Customs Act, 1962 and the Gold Control Act, 1960, and, therefore, liable for confisca. tioti. Both were arrested and statements recorded. c D E F G In the meanwhile Bharat Mehta, another son of the father,-detenu \\'ho had come from Calcutta to arrange for bail was arrested on 4th May 1984 by the Central Excise and Customs Officials after his room in the Hotel, was sear· ched and Indian currency notes amounting to Rs. 24,865 were seized, which he allegedly had brought for meeting the legal expenses for securing release of his father and sister on bail. All the three were remar.ded to jail custody. They retracted their staten1ents made before the Central Excise and Customs Officers alleging that they were made a t·the dictates of the customs officers. Pragna Mehta w2s served with a detention order under the Conservati.on of Eoreign Exchange and ·Prevention of. Smuggling Activitit:s .Act 1974 under s. 3(1) (iii) on 20th June 1984 and was serv:d with the grounds of detention in English language. Hindi translation of the grounds of detention was served on 30th June. 1984. Venilal Mehta and his son Bharat Mehta were served wi.th detention orders under s. 3(1) (iii) and (iv) of the Act on 20th June, 1984 and on 25th June, 1984 the ground.:; of detention were also served on them. The grounds of detention were in English language . while some of the 11ccqmpanying documents were in Malayalam. Th~ detenus made representations for the revo~ cntion of their detention. They appeared before the Advisory Roard on 6th Augu')t, 1984. The Advisory Board reported that th·~re was sufficient cause for detention of the detenus and accordingly the Govt. confirmed their detention Orders on 13th August, 1984. All the three detention orders have been challenged contendihg : (J) that the grounds were not communicated to the detenus in a language understood by them, (2) that the retraction of the confessions or 'statements made under s. 108 of the Custom" Act, 1962 had not been taken into consideration, (3) that there was delay in serving the grounds upon the detenus, (4) that the detenus were not allowed to be represented properly before the Advisory Board, (5) that the fact of retr.ilction of the confessions having not been taken into oonsideration the proceedings were vitiated, and (6) that the detaining authcirity did not independently con<:ider the repr!~!'lt:.ttions of the d-:t!nu'i but mechanically fo11owe_d the advice of the Advisory Board. Dismissing the Petition.;, HELD : t. The pro;~jnr,11 s1f:gu ir;!s hlve h"en complied with as far as practicable. There are n1 m~rits in th! fa11~ied grievances of the detenus .[732] 2. Article 22 of th>! Co11)titution ensure~ protection against arrest and l J J detentiQn e~cept iQ certain pr~sqrjbed circu!'Q~tanc~'> and c1nditions, Art. 22(4) I I ~ , , P.C. MEHTA v. Kl!RALA GOVT. 699 stipulates ·that no law providing for preventive deterltion shall authorise the detention of a person for a longer period than three months unless (a) Advisory Board has repJrtel b:fore · th: e~:li ration of the said period of three months 'that there is in its opinion sufficient cau,e for such detention and (b) such · person is detained in accordance with the provision of any Jaw made by the Parliament under sub-els. (a) and (b) or cl. (7). [618D-G J Clause (S) of Art. 22 provides that the grOunds of detention must be communicated to the detenu ai soon as may be and that he should be 'afforded the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order. Therefore. it must follow as an imp~rative that the grounds mu'it b: communicated ina langu1gJ u1l:rit>>I IJf t'1: o:ri'll c.J-i~:r,1el soth1t be can make an effectiverepreientatio:l. [719; 7209-C] Harikisan v .. The State o/ .\t1r11r;is!11Ta & Others. [t96!J 2 Supp~ s~R 918. In the instant case, the facts revealed that the detenu Vaoi1a1 Mehta was conc;tantly accomoanied and was in the comp1ny of his daughter as well a! hiS son-both of ~honl knew English. very well. Th~ f~ther ·signed his mercy petition, in Gujarati wh!ch w1s written in English; accepting the guilt or his Involvement in smuggti~g. Th~re is no rul! of law th1t c.:>mmon sense should b~ 'p\lt iri cold storage while con-;idering co~stitution1l provisions for safeguards ag1inst mi~use of powers by authorities thouih these con'ititutional provisio'as should b;: strictly construed. He wa! in any event given by 30th June. 1984, the Hindi tra1slatio:i or rhe grounds or which he claimed ignorance. The gist or annexure! which were given in Malayalam language had .been stated in the ground!. That h: doe! not k:now.1nythin3 exce;>t Gujarati is merely ipse dixit offath!r-detenll and is not the Jast word and the Court is not denuded to its powers to eitam!ne thC truth The Court is not the pl1c: where one ca.a sell all tales. The d'!taining authority cam' to the conctu:;ion that be knew both 1-lindi and Engliih. It hac; b..:en stat~d Sr) in the counter-affidavit. The circum-, stances indicate that fath~r-dl!tenu wac; merely f:igning ignorance of English (720C-H; 720 A-BJ ,n the instant case, th= grou-iJ~ w.::re giv~1_on 25th. fLl'le, 1931- following the search and seizure of gold bis:aits fro n r..>.Jn. of detenu Venilal Mehta in the Hotel in bis presence and in the bickground of the m:rcy petition. he was in constant __ touch with his daughter and son\ and th,re is no evidence that these peopt~ did not know Hindi or English. Indeed they knew English as well as Hindi. It is difficult to accept the positiqn that in the p.:culiar facts of this ca,e. the grounds were not communicated iri th'! seil•·.:: the grounds of detention w.Jre n>t c..:>nv~yed to the d.:tenu Venih.1. Whether grounds were communiCJted or not de~!nd U?.J,.1 th:: fd::ts. a 1J circum·nanc:s of each c1s~. [722 D·F] Eiaiibandhu DaJ v. District Magistrafe, Cuttack & Aflr. [1969) I SCR 2rt, Nainmal P "tap Ma/ Shah v. U•ion of lnJia anl o,, [19 lOJ 4 SCC 427 and .f.!!!ahim Ahm1'1 8.llli v. SW! of G·1/a•at & On. [1983) I SCR 540 distinguished.· A B c D E F G • H. A B D E.1 F G .ff' l -------------------------- \ 700 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985] 3 s_C,R, 4. Artich: 22(5) of the Constitution h.J.s two elem~nts (i) communication. of the grounds on which the order or detention has be~n made. and (ii) oppor· , tunity of making representation against the order of detention._ Communica .. tion of the ·grounds pre-supposes the formulation of th: grounds and formula .. tion of the- ground , requires :ind ensures the application of ihe mind of the .. detaining autho_rity to the facts and materials before it that is ·to say, to perti ... , nent and proximate matter:i in reg1rd to each individual c.io;: and e~cludes the element of arbitrarines~ and automatism. [725E-G]:, ·s. The &•grOund\" undei- . .\rt. 22(5) of the Constitution do not r'nean mere f.lctu1t inferencl!s but ·m~ 111 fa.:tu1I infl!rences plu:i. fac1u1l material which led to. such . factu 11 infer.:nce-.. The CO'.lcept of .. grounds.,; thereforec has to receive an interpretation which will keep it m!anin~ful!y in tun! with lhe con .. temporary notiono; of the re11iti::s of th' so::iety and t~:: purp::>se of the Act in que!ltion in the light or CO'lcePt~ Or liberty and rund:imental freedom1 guaran· teed by Ar!. 19(1), 21 and 22 of the Constitution.[725-H; 726,A·BI Smt. Sha/ini Soni Etc. v. Union of lmfo & o,.. [ 1931 I 1 SCR 962, relied upon.: ' I . . . . - .·. . 6. · A democratic Cono;titution is not to be interpr..:ted merely from a Jexicographer·s angle but with a r..:Jlis:ition th1t it i1 an embodiment of I he Jiving thoughts and. aspiration. of a. frc.! p.:ople. The concept of ugrOunds•• u,eJ in the conte:t.t of detention in Art. -22(5) of th.: C.Jnditution 3.nd in sub·s. (3) ofS.3 ofCOFEPOi.\ th!rerore. has to receive an interpretation which will keep-it meaningfully in tu~e with a c"nt!!n'lor.lry n lti lll. Whil.J . the expres. sion .. grounds•• r..,r that matter includ.:s ll'Jt only conclu<;ion of facts but also all the '"basiC facts90 on which th,:>~c conclu~ion:; werl!· f0undi!d, they are dHTe- · rent from Subsidiary facts or further particulars or thl! basic r~cts. [726C·E] flasmukh S/o B!Jagwanji Al. Pate/ v. The State o/G11}arat &: OtherJ, [1981] l SCR 353 ietied upon. < ·, .. · Iii the instant ca!le. the grounds of J!tention i!I the sltisfaction of the dela:inin& atitho~itY that with a view to preventing the detenu from ·acting in any manner pr.!juJidal · t;J · th~ ciJnscrvation or augmentatior1 of foreign ex. charige or with a 'view to pri!vl!nting th::: d.:t~nu fro:n, inter a/i.i, dealing in smuggled C:xid, otherWise thin by engaging in tr<;1-11 p:Jrting or concealing· or keeping 'he sinuggleJ iO'Jd' or e'lg1.o:ing in transporting or concealing or keeP:"' in"" sffiUggled goods the detention or ihe detenu is ncces"ary. This satisfaction w:s arrived at as inf!rences fr.:Jm several factors. One or them is that the ret. · raction from,th~ statem!nts ml~~ in the conrl!5o;io:l or statements under s. 108 of the .Cu~tomo; .Act JiJ.d not b.!en taken in_t.J consideration by the' detaining authority. whil: pa--ising d.::tcntion order. The: question is whether even if the facts stated in the confe<>sion are completely ignor~d. then the: inferences can still be drawn frQm other indepznden.t and objective facts ntentiQned ia this • P.C. MEHTA v. KERALA aovr. 701 case, namely, the fact of seizur~ of 60 gJ!d biscuits from the suitcase of the daughter in the presence of the father which indubitably belonged to the father and admitted by him to belong to him for which no e11tp1anation has ibeen givet;t. and secondly the seizure of the papers connected with other groups -and organi .. sations to whom gold has been sold by the father are relevant groiJnds from which a,n inference can reasonably be drawn for the satisfaction of the detaining authority for detaining the de ten us for the purpose of Sec. 3(1) (iii) and 3( l)(iv) The impugned order canrrot be <;:hallenged merely by the rejeCtion of the inference drawn from confession. [726E-H; 727A-C] · 7. (i) The Court is not concerned with the sufficiency of the grounds. It is concerned •whether there arc rdevant materials on which a r~asonab!e belief or conviction could have be::n entertained by the detaining authority on the grounds mentioned ins. 3(1) of the Act. Whether other grounds shou!d have been taken into cono;ideration or riot is not relevant at the stage of the passing of the detention order. If that is the position then in view of s. SA of the Act there was sufficient materia 1 to sustain this ground of detention. [7270-E] (ii) When detention under s. 3 of the Act is only for the purpose of prevention of smuggling and all the grounds, whether there are one or more, would be relatable only to various activitii:s of smuggling and no other separate ground which could deal with rilatters other than smuggling could be conceived of because the act ofsmJg~ling cov.!rej 'i~l"eral activities each forming a separate ground of detention and the A::t dealt with no other act except smuggling. Whenever allegations of .smuii!ing were made ae:ain'it a person who was sought to be detained for preventing further smug11:1ing there is bound to be one act or several acts with the con1mon.object of smuggling: goods which was sought to be prevented by the A,;t. It would, therefore, not be correct to say that the obje,ct of the Act constituted the ground for detentiorI. In the instant case, however, the authorities concerned came to the concJusion that the detenus were engaged in'smuga:ling, in support of the same they relied on several factors namely: (1) the search and ~eizu!'e and recovery of 60 gold biscuits, (2) the fact that the importation of the 60 gold biscuHs could not be explained by the detenu Venilal, (3) the secretive manner in which the said gold biscuits were kept and (4) the connection with th: various dealers and the ~tatements of the employees of the dealers that the father and the sons used to. come with gold bars. These materials were in additi.c. MEHTA v. KERALA aovT. (s. Mukharjl, J.) io5 father and sister· as mentioned hereinbefore. When all the three were remanded to jail custody, the father, the daughter and ·the son retracted their statinents. T hey made complaints to the Collector of Central Excise and Customs about the manner in which their statements· were obtained. Application for bail was moved on 7th May, 198• before the learned Acting Chief Judicial Magistrate. Miss Pragna Mehta was allowed interim bail till 7th May, 1984. On 8th May, 1984 the bail application was rejected. After the cancellation of her bail application, Pragna Mehta movod an application under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the Kerala High. Court and the High Court was pleased to grant bail on certain conditions. She was served with the detention order on 20th June, 19g4, and the detenu was served with the grounds of detention in English.language. Hindi translatio1i of the grounds of detention was served on~the detenu on 30th June, 1984. The father's bail application was, however, rejectad by the Kerala High Court. The father was transferred on 24th May, 1984 from sub-jail, Erna~ulam. to the General Hospital, Ernakulam because he had become ill. He was thereafter admitted in the General Hospital. · The .son's bail application was also rcjec.ted by the High Gourt of Kerala and he was also transferred to the General, Hospital, Ernakulam because he became ill. Thereafter on 6th June, 1984, application for grant of bail was moved on behalf of the father and the son before the Sessions Judge and the said application was rejected on 12th June, 1984 in respect of both of them. · . Both Bharat Mehta and Venilal Mehta were transferred to the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam for treatment. On 20th June 1984, the father and the son while in custody and undergoing treatment in Medical College Hospital were served with the detention orders uhder the said Act Thereafter they were transferred to the Central Prison, Trivandrum. On 25th June, 1984, the grounds were served on-;ll~hree of th~m: It is alleged that the said grounds were served nearly at m1dmght and said grounds served were written in English while A B c D E F G H A B c D E F G 706 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985] 3 S.C.R. some of the accompanying documents about six in number were in Malayalam. On 25th July, 1984 Miss Pragna Mehta made an application praying, inter alia that the order of detention by revoked and she may be set at liberty. On 4th August, 1984, she wrote a letter to the Chairman, Advisory Board seeking the assistance of a legal practitioner or a friend during the Advisory Board proceedings. It is alleged that on or about 6th August, 1984, she was informed at 9.00 A.M. for the first time that she had to appear before the Advisory Board at 10.00 A.M. It is her case that she appeared without being given an opportunity of being assisted by any friend. She further alleges that she being the only lady detenu in solitary confinement, after coming back from the Advisory Board meeting made a ·representation to the detaining authority for certain jail facilities namely, facility of home cooked food, reading and writing materials, frequent interviews with relations and friends, facility of writing letters to mother in Gujarati language, sewing and embroidery·materials and hygienic toilet facility. She made a representation to the Central Government on 9th August, 1984 for revocation of her detention order. On 11th August, 1984, a letter was received by her from the Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Government of Kerala respondent No. 1 that there was no provision for home cooked food and there was no solitary confinement, that interviews, and all outgoing and incoming letters are required to be censored and no special restriciions have been imposed upon her. She alleges that on 13th August, 1984, she came to know from the jail authorities that the Advisory Board had confirmed the detention of her and of brother and father for one year and that the opinion of the Advisory Board was published in the local newspaper Mothrubhumi on 13th August, 1984. On 23rd August, 1984 she received a letter that her representation dated 25th July; 1984 had been rejected. On 24th August, 1984 she received a letter from the Under Secretary to the GovernH roent of India in t~rms whereof she was informed tbat her repre- ~.· J>.c. MEHTA v. KBRALA GOVT, (S. Mukharji, J.) 707 sentation dated.9th Angus!, 1984 addressed to the Central GovernA ment bad been rejected. On 23th August, 1984, she was served with an order issued by respondent No. 1 whereby she was informed that the Advisory B·oard in its report had expressed that there was sufficient cause for deten- • B lion of the detenu and accordingly,·the Government confirmed the order of detention for a period of one year. So far as father, Venilal Mehta is concerned, it is his ·case that Hindi translation of grounds of detention was served on him on 30th June._ 1984. While suppiying the Hindi translation of the gronnds, the annexures being annexure Nos. I. 6, 8, 27, 38 and 47 of the list of documents were supplied in Malayalam. It is the case of the father that he does not know how to read, write or speak English or Hindi or Malayalam. He can only sign his name in English. But thereafter on 27th May, 1984 he made. a representation in Gujarati to the detaining authority praying that he· was unable to read, write either English or Hindi or Malayalam. and the grounds of detention may be given to him duly translated in Gujarati. On 5th August, 1984, be was informed by a letter dated 4th August, 1984 that his representation could only be examined after the same was translated into English. On 5th August, 1984 he made a representation to the detaining authority praying that his -detention order may be revoked. He was informed on 6th August, 1984 at 9. 15 A. M. that he would have to appear before the Advisory Board at 10.00 A.M. He appeared before the Ad.visory Board and the Advisory Board had confirmed his order. of detent.ion on 13th August, 1984. He reeived a letter on 25th August, 1984 that his request for supply of grounds of dcntent.ion and connected documents . was not consi-dered necessary by , the Government. The representation dated 9th August, 1984 was rejected and the same was communicated to him by a letter dated 28th August, 1984, and he was informed on· 31st August, 1984 that the Advisory Board was of the opinion tJ:iat there was sufficient ground for detention. He was also informed by a Jetter dated 10th August, 1984 that his represe!ltation dated 5th August, 1984 had been rejected. More or less similar is the case of the son except that he c D 'E F G ,H 708 SUPREME COURTS REPORTS (1985] 3 S.C.R. A did not plead ignorance of any language English or Hindi. B c D E F G ff As mentioned hereinafter, all the three detention ord.ers have been challenged by Prakash Chandra Mehta, the son of Venilal Mehta and brother of Bharat Mehta and Pragna Mehta by these three separate writ petitions. The father had on or about 30th June, 1984 made a representationfor mercy. It was written in English but signed in Gujarati. It is the c' se of the father that his son brought this representation prepared by his wife and without understanding he signed the representation for. forwarding the same to the proper authorities. The __/ . detenus Venilal Metha, the father and Bharat Mehta, the son, were ____.'\ detained on grounds mentioned in section 3 (I) (iii) and 3 (iJ (iv) of the Act and the detenu Miss Pragna Mehta, the daughter was detained on grounds mentiond in section 3. (i) (iii) of the said Act. The said orders were dated 19th ) une, 1984 were served on 20th June, 1984 alongwith the grounds in English. It was further mentioned in the communications containing the said ground~ .that the said grounds were being communicated to them for the purpose of Article 22 (5) of the Constitution and they were given opportunities to make representation against the said grounds. The grounds of detention stated that on the basis of intelligence received a search of room No. 316 of Dwaraka Hotei at M.G. Road, Ernakulam, was conducted and after being indentified it was stated that the Customs authorities had reason to believe that gold of foreign origin was kept in the room in the custody: of B.V. Shah in contravention of the provisions of the Custl,ms Act, 1962 and Gold Control Act, 1960. The occupants of the room, · the father and the daughter had informed that they were not having any such articles. Thereafter the Superintendent and .the party made a thorugh search in the presence of the independent witnesses, the occupants and the accountant of the hbtel, Mr. Jayaprakash. In addition to the furniture in the room there were three suitcases and one vanity bag ·inside the room. On enquiry, the father informed that two of the suitcases belonged to him and the third suitcase and the vanity bag belonged to his daughter. The Superintendent requested the daughter to identify her suitcase and accordingly she identified a brown coloured suitcase marked Aristocrat and vanity bag as hers. The two . )..___ • ' _, P.C. MEHTA v. KERALA GOVT. (S. Mukharji, !.) 709 suitcases claimed to be of the father were examined by the Superintendent. There were no gold or incriminating documents in the suitcases. The Superintendent asked the daughter to open her suitcase and accordingly she opened the suitcase by taking a key from her vanity bag: When she opened, the suitcase was foundto contain one inft1ted air pillow and certain personal clothings- ' Beneath the air pillow and the personal clothings, there was something warped in a turkish towel. When the turkish towel was removed three paper packets with abnormal weight were found. The Superintendent enquired of the daughter about the contents of the three packets and she had remained silent. Immediately the· father disclosed that the packets contained gold biscuits of foreign origin . When the Superintendent as~ed about the quantity. .the father informed that the three packets totally contained 60 gold biscuits, with 25 gold biscuits each in two bigger p'.lckets and 10 gold biscuits in the small packet. All the three jl"ackets were covered with paper bearing printed English letters. The three. packets were opened and examined and found to contain 60 gold biscuits, with 25 gold biscuits each in two pack-ots and 10 gold biscuits in the third packet. All the 60 gold biscuits were thorouhly. examined, weighed and purity tested by a cerified goldsmith. Each gold biscuits was found to be of 24 carat purity with a weight of 116. 5 grams. The total weight and other particulars of the said gold biscuits and other particulars of certain other materials found were mentioned. It is unnecessary to. set these out in detail. The persons of both the father and the daughter were searched. Nothing incriminating was found from the daughter, but certain documents which are noted as incriminating were found from the person of father, the particulars of the said documents have also been set out in the grounds. It is not relevant for our present purpose to set these out in detail. · The Superintendent asked the daughter and the father whether they were having any valid documents to prove· the A H C· ·o E F nature of import and prove the legal possession of the 60 gold G biscuits of foreign origin recovered from the suitcase claimed to be of the daughter. She replied that she did not have any such document and that she carried the above said gold biscuits from Bombay to Cochin as directed by her fathar. The father also said that he had no valid documents to prove the nature of import of the 60 gold biscuits to India and for the possession of H A B c 110 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (198S] j S.C.R. the same and that the daughter carried the gold biscuits from Bombay to Cochin as directed by him. In the premises it was stated that there was reasonable belief that 60 gold biscuits were smuggled into India and acquired and possessed and dealt with in contravention of the Customs Act, 1962 and the Gold Control Act, 1960 and hence were liable for confiscation. The show cause notice further stated that the entire articles in the suitcase from which the gold biscuits w,re recovered. the key of the suitcase and the documents r~covered from the vanity bag of Miss Pragna Mehta and from the shirt pocket of Venilal M:ehta (B. V. Shah) were al•o seized for further necessary action. The value of the gold biscuits-seized came to round about Rs. 14 lakhs. B.V. Shah alias Venilal Mehta, Miss Pragna Mehta and the independent witnesses have signed on the documents and on the mahazar. Mr. Jayaprakash accountant of Dwaraka Hotal had also appended his signature in the mahazar. A copy of the mahazar was also given to B.V. Shah alias Venilal Mehta and his acknowledgement was obtained on the original. E Ground I (b) stated about the search on intelligence report G H of Hotel Airlines at M.G. Road, Ernakulam. It is not necessary to set out in detail the documents and the currency notes seized, particulars whereof were stated in the said show cause . .In Ground I (c), the search and S\'izure of Swastic Society, Bombay have been set out. Certain telephone numbers are noted. The documents seized from this place included telephone bills installed at the residence of Venilal Mehta and two other telephone numbes noted in the paper. Other details of the ground and facts of the search need not be set out in detail. In Ground I (d), it was stated that the Superintendent of Customs searched premises. of· R.D. Mehta & Co. and certain particulars of telephone numbers and other documents recovered were stated therein. In Ground I (e), it was stated that the Superintendent searched the silver refinery controlled by Shri Partap Sait. Certain -·~ 7 . P.c. MEHTA v, ksRAi.A GOVT. (S. Mukharji, J.) .111 diaries and documentsw ere seized. The telephone of the refinery. is 37144. In the documents and diaries seized from the silver refinery, phone number 625768 - the phone number of the residence of Venilal Mehta was found entered. In Ground I (fl, it was mentioned that certain documents were recovered from Sadasiva Sail, the particulars whereof are mentioned therein in'. the grounds. As a result of search IO foreign made gold biscuits weighing I 16.500' grams each, 8 primary gold bars weiglling 1714 gms. and one gold piece weighing 95 gms .. were recovered from the office room. It is further stated in the show cause notice in ground II (iii) that during the sight seeing trip to Cochin with family in January, 1983 Venilal Mejita had contacted different jewellers in Cochin. Shri · Pratap Sa it of Shalimar Jewellery, Cochin alone responded to the business of Venilal Mehta. These were entered into in the statement signed by ·Miss A B c Pragna Mehta which of course, she had retracted thereafter. D From different searches at different places telephone number 37144 of Pratap Sait (at the silver refinery of Pratap Sait) was found in various documents. · In Ground II (c), the statements recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act by Venilal Mehta and others were mentioned. It is not necessary in view of the fact that these statements have been retracted, to refer and set out the said grounds in detail. In Ground II (f), the interrogation of Bharat Mehta is set out. Here also the same cannot be set out because he has also retracted. E F In Ground Ill, it is mentioned that Venilal Mehta, Miss Pragna Mehta and Bharat Mehta were arrested and produced before the then Chief Judicial Magistrate who granted permission to interrogate Sbri Venilal Mehta and Shri Bharat Mehta in the pr~sence of Jail G Superintendent. Ther.eafter Bharat Mehta was interrogated and the result of such interrogation is mentioned in Ground lV. The same again cannot be relied on because these have been retracted. In Ground V(l), it was stated that Shri Pratap Sait of H A II c 0 F G H 712 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985] 3 s.c.R 'Mahadev Parvathy House' was interrogated under section 108 of the Customs Act. He denied having 'seen Venilal Mehta or B.V. Shah. He also denied any dealings with B.V. Shah regarding the gold biscuits. In Ground V (2), it was stated that Mr. ·Prakash Krishna Yadav, an employee of the s.ilver refinery was inetrrogated under section I 08 of the Customs Act. He stated that his normal work in the refinery was purifying silver. He used to purify the gold from Shalimar Jewellery also. He knew Bharat Mehta, Venilal Mehta and Rashmi Mehta. They used to come to the refinery. They used to meet the younger brother of Pratap Sa it, Shri Suresh. They were doing wme secret business. Suresh used to entrust him,,.-"'-'\~ with certain bundles of notes to be handed over fo Veriilal Mehta or his sons. This he used to do. The documents ieized from the 'fefinery contained the accounts of agriculture and grapes were written by Pratap Sail. ·Some times Venilal Mehta, Bh~rat Mehta and Rashmi Mehta used to stay at Hotel Blue Diamond and he had met them while they were there. The telephone number of the refinery, he stated, was 37144. His statemeRI was read over to him and admitted to be correct. This statement was not retracted. In Ground V (3), it was stated that one Sl!ri Suresh Mahadeva Salunkhe S/o Mahadcv Dari Salunkhe was examined under sc~tion 108 of the Customs Act. He has also gi.ven certain facts about the business of Pratap Sait and others. He said that Pratap was looking after Blue Diamond Hotel. He ·also knew Venilal Mehta, Bharat Mehta and Rashmi Mehta. He further stated that Venilal Mehta came to the refinery some time ago and thereafter as per the telephonic direction of his brp. !her, Shrk~ Pratap Sail, he received some gold biscuits from him and had f given these to his brother. Fis brother gave a bundle <)f currency notes. This was repeated many times. In Ground V (4), it was stated that one Shri Sures):! S/o Damodharan, was interrogated under section 108 of the Customs Act. He also stated certain facts giving the connection and the phone number of Venilal Mehta. These have been set out in details in the ground. The particulars of other grounds in V (5) need not be set out in detail. P.C, MEHTA v. KERALA GOVT. (S. Mukharji, J.) 713 In Ground VI (i), it was stat~d that as a follow up action, the house . of Pratap Sait at Convent Junction, Cochin was searched. No contraband goods or incriminating documents were recovered.