I. P. SINGH, J. ( 1 ) IN this Habeas Corpus Petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, Ranjit Singh, petitioner, hereinafter referred to as the detenu, has challenged his detention in pursuance of order dated 28-6-1984 passed by the Government of India under S. 3 (1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (52 of 1974), hereinafter referred to as the cofeposa. ( 2 ) ANNEXURE-1 to the writ petition is the grounds on which detention order dated 28-6-1984 was passed. It runs as follows : "on the basis of information, the officers of Customs Preventive Unit Naxalbari along with Police Staff of Khoribari P. S. laid in ambush at vulnerable points on Bengal-Bihar border near Galgalia (which is on the Indo-Nepal border) in the night of 26/27-1-84 to intercept the truck No. UHD/613. At about 02. 00 hours on 27-1-84 the said truck was seen coming from Galgalia side and was signalled to stop, but the driver of the truck wilfully ignored the signal and went ahead at high speed. The Customs and Police Officials immediately chased the fleeing truck and when the hot chase and the attempts to make the driver stop the truck failed, they fired at the vehicle. This damaged the tyres of the speeding truck and the driver was compelled to stop the truck. 2. As the truck stopped, one of the occupants of the truck jumped out and fled away in the darkness of night but you along with Mangal Singh, were apprehended on the spot by the Customs Officers. On interrogation by the Customs Officers, you have admitted that you were carrying contraband goods of foreign origin and which were kept concealed in the truck underneath the bags of green ginger which had been loaded at Galgalia. The Customs Officials brought you, Shri Mangal Singh and the loaded truck to the Customs Office where on examination before you, Shri Mangal Singh and two independent witnesses, 23 bags of contraband goods (viz. stretch nylon yarn, Max stapler, tooth brush and cotton jeans pant pieces of third country origin) valued at Rs. 1,19,750/- were recovered from underneath 206 bags of ginger. stretch nylon yarn, Max stapler, tooth brush and cotton jeans pant pieces of third country origin) valued at Rs. 1,19,750/- were recovered from underneath 206 bags of ginger. The customs officers on your failure to produce any valid documents in support of illicit import into India in respect of the foreign goods in 23 bags, seized the said goods under the reasonable belief that they are liable to confiscation under the provisions of Customs Act, 1962. The full details of the goods seized are mentioned in the Inventory list. 3. "in your written statement dt. 27-1-84 you have stated that you were the driver of the truck UHD/613 owned by Shri Darshan Singh s/o Shri Succha Singh of 303, Berhampuri, District Meerut (U. P.) for the last 8 months and had made several trips to Assam and Siliguri from Meerut/delhi during this period. You stated that during the last trip, you had carried rice from Delhi to Siliguri; that on 26-1-84, one person by name Shri Jaiswal approached you with a proposal of carrying some goods of third country origin about 20/22 bags from Bagdogra to Lucknow on carrying charges of Rs. 2400/-; that you and Mangal Singh accepted the proposal though you had not met Shri Jaiswal earlier. You have further stated that thereafter you went to Bengal Dooara Roadways Siliguri and loaded 206 bags of green ginger for delivery to Shri Bipin Kumar Anil Kumar of Azadpur, Delhi on hire charges of Rs. 4,4847/-; that thereafter you met Shri Jaiswal at the Siliguri Junction as per previous arrangement; that Shri Jaiswal accompanied you to Galgalia where you reached at about 2300 hours and where you found some packages lying in the open space near the Galgalia Railway Station; that these packages were kept underneath the bags of ginger while you were taking rest and that you left for the destination at 01. 40 hours on 27-1-84. 40 hours on 27-1-84. You have further stated that Shri Jaiswal followed you in the Ambassador car whose number you do not know and which disappeared after escorting you for some distance; that you saw some officers in uniform near the Bihar Bengal border but ignored their signal to stop and drove ahead at faster speed; that the officers gave you a chase; that when the officers tired at your vehicle, you realised that one of your rear tyres had been hit but you continued to proceed ahead. Continuing your statement, you have stated that after some distance, the tyre got deflated and you were compelled to stop and immediately you were surrounded by the Customs Officers who took you into custody and brought you to the Customs office where the goods were inventorised in your presence and in the presence of other witnesses. Shri Mangal Singh who was also apprehended along with you, corroborated your version in his statement recorded on 27-1-84. 4. "from the facts narrated above, I am satisfied that you have engaged yourself in transporting smuggled goods and that it is necessary to detain you under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 with a view to preventing you from engaging in transporting smuggled goods. 1 have relied upon the following documents and statements before arriving at this subjective satisfaction 1. Panchnama drawn before you and the independent witnesses about the recovery of the foreign goods from truck No. UHD/613 on 27-1-84 (Inventory of seized goods.)2. Your statement dt. 27-1-84. 3. Statement of Shri Mangal Singh Dt. 27-1-84. 4. I consider it to be against public interest to disclose the source of information referred to in para I above. 5. The above grounds are communicated to you in pursuance of Cl. (5) of Art. 22 of the Constitution. 6. "copies of the documents and statements mentioned in para 4 above are enclosed to these grounds. A copy of these grounds and copies of statements and documents translated into Hindi, a language known to you, are also enclosed. If you wish to make a representation against your detention, you may do so, address it to the undersigned and forward the same through the Superintendent Central Jail, Bareilly. Sd/- M. V. N. Rao, additional Secretary to the government of India. If you wish to make a representation against your detention, you may do so, address it to the undersigned and forward the same through the Superintendent Central Jail, Bareilly. Sd/- M. V. N. Rao, additional Secretary to the government of India. " ( 3 ) THE detenu has challenged the validity of the said detention order on the ground that the detenu was merely employed as a driver on the truck in question and was not engaged in business of transporting smuggled goods and there was nothing on the record to show that the goods in question were smuggled goods and as such there was no material on the basis of which the detaining authority could satisfy that the detenu was engaged in transporting smuggled goods. ( 4 ) SECTION 2 (e) of the COFEPOSA defines "smuggling" as having the same meaning as in cl. (39) of S. 2 of the Customs Act, 1962. ( 5 ) SECTION 2 (39) of the Customs Act, 1962 defines "smuggling" and says that in relation to any goods smuggling means any act or omission which will render such goods liable to confiscation under section 111 or section 113 (of the Customs Act.) ( 6 ) SECTION 111 deals with confiscation of improperly imported, goods etc. Its various clauses detail the kind of goods which brought from a place outside India shall be liable to confiscation. ( 7 ) SECTION 113 similarly provides for confiscation of goods attempted to be improperly exported etc. ( 8 ) SECTION 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 provides to the effect that where any goods to which this section applies are seized under this Act in the reasonable belief that they are smuggled goods, the burden of proving that they are not smuggled goods shall be either on the person from whose possession the goods are seized or on the person who claims to be the owner thereof. ( 9 ) FROM the narrative of the grounds for passing the detention order, there remains no doubt that the goods found in 23 bags in question were seized by the Customs authorities on a reasonable belief that they were foreign goods imported into India which were liable to confiscation under the provisions of the Customs Act, the inventory list, annexure 2 to the writ petition, was prepared at that time which describes some of the goods "to be of 3rd country origin". The total value of the said seized goods was worked out at three lakh sixteen thousand eight hundred fifty (Rs. 3,16,850/- ). As seen above, the burden of proof to show that the said goods were not smuggled goods was on the detenu inasmuch as the said goods were seized from his possession, he being the driver of the truck from which the said goods were seized. There was no material before the detaining authority which could show that the said goods were not smuggled. We, therefore, feel satisfied that the detaining authority had material before him to feel subjectively satisfied that the seized goods were smuggled goods. ( 10 ) THE grounds as narrated above also indicate that the detaining authority had before him the statement dated 27-1-1984 of the detenu in which he had stated that he was the driver of the truck U. H. D. /613 and had made several trips to Assam and Siliguri from Meerut/delhi during that period and that on the last trip he had carried rice from Delhi to Siliguri and that on his way at Galgalia where he reached at about 23-00 hours, some packages were found lying on the open space near Galgalia Railway Station, that those packages were kept underneath the bags of ginger in the said truck while he was taking rest and he drove on for destination at 1. 45 hours on 27-1-1984, that one Sri Jaiswal who on 26-1-1984 had approached him with a proposal of carrying 20/22 bags of goods of third country origin had followed his truck in an ambassador car and after escorting the truck for some distance had disappeared that when officers in uniform near Bihar/bengal border had signalled him to stop, he ignored that signal and drove ahead at faster speed and that the said officers gave a chase and slopped his truck only when its rear tyres had been hit by fires shot by those officers, that he was arrested by them and the said seized goods were recovered which were also inventorised in his presence and that of other witnesses. Mangal Singh, co-driver, who was also arrested at that time had corroborated the above version. The detaining authority had also before him the said statement of Mangal Singh co-driver as well as the inventorised seized goods. ( 11 ) WE feel satisfied that the detaining authority had probative material before him from which he could subjectively satisfy himself that the detenu was engaged in transporting smuggled goods and it was necessary to detain him under the COFEPOSA with a view to prevent him from engaging in transporting smuggled goods. We see no invalidity in the detention order in question on the above grounds advanced by the learned counsel for the detenu. ( 12 ) LEARNED counsel for the detenu has challenged the continued detention of the detenu on the ground that activity which was considered and made the basis for passing the detention order is said to have taken place in the night of 26/27-1-1984. In that connection, the officer-in-charge. Customs Preventive Post, Nasalbari, had filed complaint against the detenu on 28-1-1984 in the court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Siliguri for an offence under Sec. 104 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the vehicle (truck in question) was seized under S. 110 of the Customs Act. 1962. On 2-2-1984 he was granted bail by the Sessions Judge, In charge, Darjeeling and after the bail bonds were submitted he was released on 10-2-1984. The detention order was passed on 28-6-84 almost five months after the alleged activity. It was, therefore, argued that the ground of detention is stale and for that reason the detention order is bad and invalid. The detention order was passed on 28-6-84 almost five months after the alleged activity. It was, therefore, argued that the ground of detention is stale and for that reason the detention order is bad and invalid. ( 13 ) IN counter-affidavit of Sri U. N. Das, Assistant Collector of Customs, it is stated that :"investigations and enquiries were made to locate Shri Jaiswal, the suspect owner of the goods at Galgalia and Calcutta. Investigations were made in respect of M/s. Bengal Dooars Roadways, Siliguri and the owner of the truck at Meerut, U. O. Enquiries, investigation and verification of addresses of Shri Mangal Singh was done at Manake, Punjab at Hapur, Ghaziabad, U. P. in respect of Shri Ranjit Singh and Shri Darshan Singh. As several places and people were involved it took nearly two months time and the Superintendent, Naxalbari, Preventive Unit, submitted the investigation report on 2-4-1984 and the proposal for detention was sent to the Collector of Customs preventive, Patna on 4-4-1984. The Collector of Customs Preventive, Patna asked for the case file on 12-4-1984 and I he same was sent to him on 12-4-1984. That the Collector, Customs Preventive, Patna referred the proposal for detention to the Central Government on 18-4-1984 which was received in the Ministry on 23-4-1984. That additional copies of some more documents were sent by Collector on 21-4-1984 and received in the Ministry on 24-4-1984. The Screening Committee meeting was fixed on 30-5-1984 which was postponed to 4-6-1984 as some members were not available. As the Sponsoring Authority, i. e. Collector was away to Kathmandu from 4-6-1984 to 6-6-1984, it was fixed for 14-6-1984. Out of 20 cases 9 were considered on 14-6-1984 and the remaining 11 cases including the present one were considered on 15-6-1984. On 16-6-1984 the Collector was asked to forward all the documents relied upon in English as well as in Hindi. The grounds were prepared and approved and sent for Hindi translation on 18-6-1984. On 26-6-1984 one copy of the documents like inventory, statement etc. was sent to Hindi section for translation and order was finally issued on 28-6-1984. On 16-6-1984 the Collector was asked to forward all the documents relied upon in English as well as in Hindi. The grounds were prepared and approved and sent for Hindi translation on 18-6-1984. On 26-6-1984 one copy of the documents like inventory, statement etc. was sent to Hindi section for translation and order was finally issued on 28-6-1984. " ( 14 ) IN the circumstances of case, we feel satisfied that the above period of five months was spent in progressive manner giving full attention to the case at its various stages and levels and it could not be said that the matter was treated as a forgotten one and all of a sudden the detention order was passed after five months. The detention order is not bad on account of staleness. ( 15 ) IN case of Ashok Narain v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 1222 , it was held :"where the detenu was apprehended for breach of foreign exchange regulation in February 1981 and without launching any prosecution the detenu was detained in October, 1981, the passage of time being result of full and detailed consideration of facts and circumstances of the case after thorough examination at various levels it could not be said that the detention was in any way illegal when the detaining authority had fully satisfactorily applied his mind to the question of detention. " ( 16 ) THE continued detention of the detenu is also challenged by his learned counsel on the ground that the detenu was not afforded earliest opportunity of making the representation against the order of detention with the result that his continued detention was in violation of Art. 22 (5) of the Constitution. Para 7 of the grounds of detention (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) clearly shows that along with the grounds of detention copies of documents and statements relied upon translated in Hindi were supplied to the detenu. It was clearly mentioned therein that Hindi language was known to the detenu. According to the detenu, he does not know Hindi language at all and could only sign with great difficulty in broken Hindi script. He was a sikh by caste and knew only Gurumukhi. It was clearly mentioned therein that Hindi language was known to the detenu. According to the detenu, he does not know Hindi language at all and could only sign with great difficulty in broken Hindi script. He was a sikh by caste and knew only Gurumukhi. The argument is that since the copy of grounds of detention and the copies of documents relied upon by the detaining authority were supplied translated in Hindi and as he was not conversant with Hindi, he was prevented from submitting an effective representation against his detention which violated Art. 22 (5) of the Constitution. In para 15 of the counter-affidavit of Sri U. N. Das, Assistant Collector of Customs, it is asserted that the detenu knew Hindi language and as a proof thereof reference could be made to the detenus statement which he had written himself in Hindi at the time of seizure of the goods in question, Paper No. 32 of the instant file is part of the annexure 2 to the writ petition and is the statement of Ranjeet Singh, detenu, dt. 27-1-1984, It is no doubt in Hindi and on its basis it is given out that detenu had written the said statement in his own handwriting in Hindi and for this reason he knew Hindi very well. However, we find that in the last paragraph of the said statement it is written that : ( 17 ) THIS clearly shows that even on 27-1-1984 the detenu had in unequivocal terms given out that he was not conversant with Hindi and that was why his statement was recorded by his companion, Mangal Singh, and the detenu had at the bottom of the statement verified it to be true. The authorities concerned were very much in the know and possession of this statement of the detenu. As a matter of fact, the detaining authority also mentioned in the grounds of detention that the said statement was relied upon. In spite of the fact that in the said statement it was given out that the detenu was not conversant with Hindi language, yet copy of the documents and statements were supplied to him in Hindi script with the assertion that the detenu knew Hindi language. On the facts of the case, we feel satisfied that the detenu was not conversant with Hindi language and he could only sign in broken Hindi script. On the facts of the case, we feel satisfied that the detenu was not conversant with Hindi language and he could only sign in broken Hindi script. It was asserted that he knew only Gurumukhi script. We have no reason to disbelieve this assertion. Since copies of the relevant documents were not supplied to him in the script known to him, he cannot be said to have been afforded an opportunity of making an effective representation against the detention order. Art. 22 (5) of Constitution was clearly violated. Our this view finds support from the view expressed in the following cases. (i) Hori Kisan v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1962 SC 911 , it was held :"in the case of a person detained by an order made u/s 3 (1) (a) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, communication of the grounds of detention in English, so long as it continues to be the official language of the State, is not necessarily enough compliance with the requirements of Art. 22 (5) of the Constitution. If the detained person is conversant with the English language, he will naturally be in a position to understand the grammer (grabamer?) of the charge against him and the facts and circumstances on which the order of detention is based. But to a person who is not so conversant with the English language, in order to satisfy the requirements of the Constitution, the detenu must be given the grounds in a language which he can understand and in a script, which he can read, if he is a literate person. Communication must mean bring home to the detenu effective knowledge of the facts and circumstances on which the order of detention is based so that he could make an effective representation. " (ii) Smt. Raziya Bakshi v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 1751 , it was held :"the service of the ground of detention on the detenu is a very precious constitutional right and where the grounds are couched in a language which is not known to the detenu, unless the contents of the grounds are fully explained and translated to the detenu, it will tantamount to not serving the grounds of detention to the detenu and would thus vitiate the detention ex facie. " ( 18 ) THE learned counsellor the detenu has argued that detention order was passed when the detenu was on bail in C. R. Case No. 26 of 1984 State v. Ranjeet Singh and another under S. 135 Customs Act. In other words he was being prosecuted for that offence before criminal Courts of the land. It is argued that parallel proceeding are of Criminal prosecution and often under the detention Act cannot go simultaneously and for this reason the detention order is illegal. ( 19 ) HOWEVER, it was held in the case of Alijan Mian v. District Magistrate Dhanbad, AIR 1983 SC 1130 :"as regards the contention that the criminal proceedings as well as the proceedings for preventive detention could not go together, it may be pointed out that preventive detention is an anticipatory measure and does not relate to an offence while the Criminal proceedings are to punish a person for an offence committed by him. They are not parallel proceedings. In the circumstances the pendency of a criminal prosecution is no bar to an order of preventive detention, nor is an order of preventive detention, a bar to prosecution. It is for the detaining authority to have the subjective satisfaction whether in such a case there are sufficient materials to place the person under preventive detention in order to prevent him, from acting in a manner prejudicial to public order or the like in future. " ( 20 ) WE, therefore, do not find any force in this argument advanced on behalf of the detenu. ( 21 ) AS a result of overall discussion above this writ petition is allowed. The Respondents are directed not to detain Ranjit Singh detenu any more in pursuance of the impugned detention order dt. 28-6-1984 passed by the Government of India under S. 3 (2) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (52 of 1974 ). ( 22 ) IT is however, made clear that the order passed by us today will not entitle the detenu (petitioner) to be physically released if he is wanted in any other matter or can be detained in pursuance of any other lawful order. Petition allowed. .