1990 (9) TMI 351 - SC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of detention order under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974.
2. Consideration of material documents by the detaining authority.
3. Necessity of detention based on a single incident.
4. Delay in service of the detention order.
5. Delay in consideration of the representation submitted by the petitioner.
6. Language of the order rejecting the representation.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Detention Order:
The petitioner challenged the validity of his detention under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, based on an order dated December 12, 1989. The petitioner's detention was intended to prevent him from smuggling goods.

2. Consideration of Material Documents:
The petitioner argued that the detaining authority failed to consider material documents, specifically his bail application and the order relaxing bail conditions. He claimed this resulted in a denial of his right to make a representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution. The Court found no substance in this contention, stating that these documents were not material and their non-consideration did not vitiate the detention order. The Court referenced the decision in *Haridas Amarchand Shah v. K.L. Verma*, which held that such documents were not vital for the satisfaction of the detaining authority.

3. Necessity of Detention Based on a Single Incident:
The petitioner contended that the detention order was unnecessary as it was based on a single incident of smuggling. The Court disagreed, stating that preventive detention can be based on a reasonable prognosis of future behavior inferred from past conduct, which may consist of a single act. The Court found that the petitioner's deliberate act of smuggling gold bars concealed in his body, using a passport under a false name, indicated a likelihood of future smuggling activities.

4. Delay in Service of the Detention Order:
The petitioner claimed that the detention order, passed on December 12, 1989, was served after a month on January 12, 1990, despite his availability. The Court found that efforts were made to execute the order, but the petitioner was not available at his known address. The order was executed promptly after his surrender on January 8, 1990. Therefore, the Court concluded that there was no undue delay in serving the detention order.

5. Delay in Consideration of the Representation:
The petitioner alleged delay in the consideration of his representation dated January 18, 1990. The Court noted that the representation was received by the Ministry of Finance on January 30, 1990, and was considered on February 20, 1990, with the memo rejecting the representation issued on February 21, 1990. The Court found that the time taken to obtain comments from the sponsoring authority and the actual consideration period was reasonable, and there was no inordinate delay.

6. Language of the Order Rejecting the Representation:
The petitioner argued that the order rejecting his representation was in English, a language he did not understand. The Court observed that this ground was not raised in the writ petition, and the respondents had no opportunity to address it. However, the Court noted an endorsement by the Jailor, stating that the order was read and explained to the petitioner in a language he understood. Therefore, the Court dismissed this contention.

Conclusion:
The Court dismissed the writ petition, finding no merit in the grounds urged by the petitioner's counsel. The detention order was upheld as valid and lawful.