1982 (3) TMI 274 - SC - Customs

Summary

Issues: Attempted illegal export of Indian currency, Order of preventive detention, Challenge to detention order under Article 32 of the Constitution, Legal basis for preventive detention, Relevance of past conduct in preventive detention decisions, Possibility of prosecution as a bar to preventive detention

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. The individual was found in possession of a significant amount of Indian currency while boarding a flight to Abu Dhabi. The customs authorities seized the currency, leading to the individual's arrest and subsequent detention under the Customs Act, 1962, and the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973.

Order of preventive detention:
The Collector of Customs and Central Excise recommended the individual's preventive detention due to the planned and pre-meditated nature of the attempted currency export. The Special Secretary (Home) of Kerala, under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, passed an order for the individual's detention, citing the necessity to prevent smuggling activities.

Challenge to detention order under Article 32 of the Constitution:
The individual's wife filed a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the detention order. The contention was that a single instance of currency export should not warrant preventive detention, arguing against the necessity of detention to prevent future similar activities.

Legal basis for preventive detention:
The court referenced previous judgments to establish the legal basis for preventive detention. It was highlighted that preventive detention is a precautionary measure based on a reasonable prognosis of future behavior, considering past conduct and surrounding circumstances. The court emphasized that the nature of the act and the circumstances determine the justification for preventive detention.

Relevance of past conduct in preventive detention decisions:
The court emphasized that past conduct, even a single act, can be indicative of future behavior warranting preventive detention. In this case, the individual's planned and concealed attempt to export currency justified the conclusion that he might repeat the offense in the future, justifying his preventive detention.

Possibility of prosecution as a bar to preventive detention:
The court addressed the argument that the individual could be prosecuted under the Customs Act, suggesting that prosecution does not necessarily bar preventive detention. The court highlighted that preventive detention can be justified if there is a tendency to violate laws, even if prosecution is possible. The detaining authority must consider the possibility of prosecution but can opt for preventive detention to prevent future offenses.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition challenging the detention order, rejecting the arguments against preventive detention based on past conduct and the possibility of prosecution. The judgment underscored the preventive nature of detention orders and the authority's subjective satisfaction in making such decisions.