Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

13. In reply to this contention, Shri Agarwal for the respondent has contended that, in the first place, each of these 144 remittances constitutes a separate breach of the provisions of FERA and could be a separate ground for passing an order of detention. Indeed, he contended that in the facts of this case, there could have been as many as 144 orders of detention based on 144 distinct grounds of remittances abroad supported by the material in respect of each of the 144 grounds. He further contended that what the petitioner contends is an ideal situation where the bank officials ought not to have fallen a prey and the bank ought not to have agreed to remit money abroad in each of the remittances in the event of having supplied with the set of 7 documents. It is then contended that inrespect of most of the remittances the documents furnished to the bankers at Ahmedabad were complete and even assuming that in many cases they were incomplete that does not detract from the validity of the order of detention since it is not this Court to go into the question of sufficiency of the material for reaching the satisfaction for issuing an order of detention. Our attention was invited to the details of certain remittances where the majority of 7 documents were available, on the basis of which, some how, the detenu seems to have prevailed upon the bank officials at Ahmedabad to agree to make remittances and infact the remittances have been made abroad. What is further complained of by the respondents is that without having actually imported the diamonds, bogus documents including bogus customs documents were prepared with the help of bogus stamps and seals on the bills of entry and customs clearances and on the basis of such bogus documents the bank officials at Ahmedabad were led to believe that the detenu had to make payments to the exporters abroad. Assuming, therefore, that the detenu prevailed upon the bank officials at Ahmedabad to make remittances abroad on the basis of incomplete documents, Counsel for the respondents contends that this is not a ground for invalidating the order of detention.

47. Shri Verma has rightly stated that the procedure for complying with these 7 sets of documents is applicable in case of genuine imports and as stated ahove in the case of an honest importer approaching an honest Bank official. Obviously, it can have no application where a person like the detenu, who claims to have made imports on the basis of fraudulent and fabricated documents, without having actually imported rough diamonds, approaches a willing and obliging Bank official for remittances to bogus companies abroad in the names of his sister and brother. We have been taken through the chart to show that in most of the 144 remittances, all the 7 columns cannot be said to have been duly filled in before the Bank agreed to make a remittance. Assuming for the sake of arguments that this is so, we are at a loss to understate as to how this would vitiate the order of detention. If the 144 remittances are the basis of the grounds of detention and assuming that each of the 144 violations is a case of incomplete documentation in the sense that in no case all the 7 columns indicated by the detenu's counsel are duly filled in, if the detaining authority thought that these materiris were sufficient for recording the satisfaction required under Section 3 of the Act, it is not for us to say that the Bank official ought not to have made the remittances without having verified that each of the remittances was supported by the complete set of all the document and that all the 7 columns of each of the remittance were duly filled in. In our view, the agrument is fallacious and on consideration of the material before us, we are not prepared to examine the sufficiency or otherwise of the documents in support of each of the 144 remittances viz- the question as to whether Bank officials ought to have made the remittances. It is one thing to consider as to whether the Bank official ought to have made the remittance in the absence of all the documents being produced before him; it is quite a different thing for the detaining authority to be satisfied that in spite of failure on the part of the detenu to comply with all the formalities, he persuaded, indeed, prevailed upon the Bank officials to make the 144 remittances as enumerated in the grounds of detention. Thus, without undertaking the exercise or going into the details of each of the 144 remittances, we have no hesitation in rejecting the second contention raised by Shri Karrnali.

57. The fourth contention raised is in ground Q at page 24-G. It pertains to a document supplied to the detenu being incomplete, viz. copy of the statement of Bhupendra Vakharia recorded on 12th November, 1992. While the Gujarathi version is to be found at pages 452 to 455 of the compilation of documents, the English version is to be found at pages 456 to 458. It appears that the entire Gujarathi version has been translated into English which is at pages 456 to 458. We have gone through both the versions and it appears to us that the best portion of the translated version in English, is complete though the corresponding portion in Gujarathi is missing. A perusal of the last portion namely pages 458 in English shows that it is not relating to any basic fact but refers to some of the minor details of the modus operandi adopted by the detenu while operating the bank accounts. It refers to one Salim, employee of the detenu, going to the banks and other places for operating the accounts on behalf of the detenu. We do not think that this portion constitutes basic fact or primary basic fact on which the grounds of detention have been formulated. Even assuming that while the translation is complete, the original document was incomplete we are of the view that failure to furnish part of Gujarati version of the statement of Bhupendra Vakharia recorded on 12.11.1992 does not violate the detenu's right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution.

(8) Similarly if a document is incomplete qua a portion which does not constitute the basis or primary fact on which the grounds of detention have been formulated this by itself would not vitate the order of detention, if it can be ascertained from the other documents furnished to the detenu as to what those insignificant or subsidiary contents were qua which document is incomplete.

60. Rule is discharged.