2007 (2) TMI 31 - SC - Customs

Settlement Commission- Petetioner were detained under section 3 (1) of the COFEPOSA Act for misdeclaration of consignments- Purpose of passing detention order is to prevent the detenu from continuing his pre-judicial activity but not to punish him.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality and validity of the detention order under COFEPOSA Act, 1974.
2. Impact of the Settlement Commission's order on the detention order.
3. The role of personal liberty and preventive detention laws.
4. Applicability of previous Supreme Court judgments.
5. The jurisdiction and powers of the Settlement Commission.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality and Validity of the Detention Order:
The petitioner was detained under Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act, 1974, challenging the detention order dated 12-1-2005 issued by the Principal Secretary (Appeals and Security), Government of Maharashtra. The petitioner argued that the detention order was based on the same grounds as those considered by the Settlement Commission, which had already granted immunity from prosecution and penalty.

2. Impact of the Settlement Commission's Order:
The Settlement Commission, via its final order dated 7-3-2006, settled the case on payment of Customs Duty and granted immunity to the petitioner from any penalty and prosecution under the Customs Act, 1962, as well as under IPC. The petitioner argued that the detention order should be quashed as the issues had been settled, and continuing the detention would be contrary to the legislative intent behind the settlement scheme.

3. The Role of Personal Liberty and Preventive Detention Laws:
The petitioner emphasized that personal liberty is a cherished freedom and that preventive detention should be used sparingly and strictly construed. The petitioner argued that the detention order was punitive rather than preventive, especially after the Settlement Commission had settled the case and granted immunity.

4. Applicability of Previous Supreme Court Judgments:
The petitioner relied on the judgment in Hira Lal Hari Lal Bhagwati v. CBI, where it was held that once a matter is settled under a scheme, further criminal proceedings are barred. The petitioner also cited Pawan Bhartiya v. Union of India, where the Supreme Court quashed a detention order at the pre-execution stage, considering the payment of duties and the cessation of prejudicial activities.

5. The Jurisdiction and Powers of the Settlement Commission:
The respondent argued that the Settlement Commission's jurisdiction is limited to settling duty liabilities and granting immunity from prosecution under the Customs Act, 1962, and IPC. The detention order under COFEPOSA Act, 1974, aimed at preventing future prejudicial activities, was distinct and not affected by the Settlement Commission's order.

Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that the detention order under COFEPOSA Act was distinct from the Settlement Commission's order. However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances, including the settlement of the case by the Settlement Commission and the grant of immunity, the Court quashed the detention order against the petitioner. The Court emphasized that the purpose of preventive detention is to prevent future prejudicial activities, not to punish the individual, and found no purpose would be served by continuing the detention order. The writ petition was allowed, and the detention order dated 12-1-2005 was quashed and set aside.