1982 (3) TMI 252 - SC - Customs

Whether prosecution of the offender was possible and sufficient in the circumstances of the case? Held that - In the present case the detenu tried to export Indian Currency to the tune of ₹ 2,88,900/- to a foreign country in a planned and pre-meditate manner by clever concealment of it in several parts of his baggage. This fully justified the detaining authority in coming to the conclusion that he might repeat his illegal act in future also and that his detention was necessary to preventing him from repeating the same in future. His past act in the circumstances might be an index of his future conduct. When the legislature has made only the subjective satisfaction of the authority making the order of detention; it is not for the court to question whether the grounds given in the order are sufficient or not for the subjective satisfaction of the authority. Appeal dismissed.

Issues: Attempted illegal export of Indian Currency, Detention under Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, Challenge to detention order under Article 32 of the Constitution, Justification for preventive detention, Possibility of prosecution under Customs Act.

Attempted illegal export of Indian Currency:
The case involved an individual engaged in the Recruiting and Travel agency business who attempted to export Indian Currency illegally amounting to Rs. 2,88,900. The currency was concealed in various parts of his baggage and was discovered during custom examination at the Trivandrum Airport. The individual did not possess valid permits for the export, leading to his arrest under Sections 132 and 135 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Detention under Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act:
Following the illegal export attempt, the Collector of Customs and Central Excise made a report stating that the individual had violated the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, and the Customs Act, 1962. Subsequently, the Special Secretary (Home) Kerala ordered the individual's detention under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, to prevent him from smuggling goods.

Challenge to detention order under Article 32 of the Constitution:
The wife of the detained individual filed a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the detention order. The contention was that a single instance of attempting to export Indian Currency should not warrant detention as there was no indication of a repeat offense in the future.

Justification for preventive detention:
The Court emphasized that the nature of the act and the circumstances surrounding it determine the justification for preventive detention. In this case, the individual's planned and pre-meditated attempt to export a large sum of Indian Currency indicated a likelihood of repeating the offense in the future, justifying the detention order.

Possibility of prosecution under Customs Act:
The argument that the individual could be prosecuted under the Customs Act instead of being preventively detained was dismissed. The Court held that the possibility of prosecution does not bar preventive detention if there is a tendency to repeat offenses. The detaining authority must consider the feasibility of prosecution and the individual's past conduct in determining the necessity of preventive detention.

Conclusion:
The Court rejected the contentions raised against the detention order, emphasizing that preventive detention is a precautionary measure based on a reasonable prognosis of future behavior. The writ petition challenging the detention order was dismissed, upholding the validity of the preventive detention under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974.

← Previous Next →