1982 (6) TMI 253 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Non-application of mind by the Detaining Authority.
2. Validity of the detention order based on specific grounds.
3. Material evidence not considered by the Detaining Authority.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Non-application of mind by the Detaining Authority:

The petitioner challenged the detention order on the grounds of non-application of mind by the Detaining Authority. It was argued that the Detaining Authority did not properly consider whether the goods were smuggled, which is a requirement for subjective satisfaction under the COFEPOSA Act. The court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Khudiram Das v. State of West Bengal, which established that non-application of mind vitiates the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority. The court also cited Dwarkaprasad v. Sahu State of Bihar, stating that if even one of the grounds for detention is non-existent or irrelevant, the entire detention order is invalid.

2. Validity of the detention order based on specific grounds:

(a) Goods in Annexure 'H': The goods listed in Annexure 'H' were not covered under Chapter IV-A or section 123 of the Customs Act, placing the burden of proof on the department to establish that they were smuggled. The Detaining Authority's affidavit did not provide sufficient reasoning for considering these goods as smuggled, relying solely on the detenu's statement about purchasing foreign goods without documentation. The court found this reasoning insufficient for drawing a legal inference that the goods were smuggled.

(b) Projector (Annexure I): The detenu had produced a cash memo for the projector, which was not placed before the Detaining Authority. The Detaining Authority claimed to have considered the memo, but the court found that mere knowledge of the memo's existence did not amount to proper consideration. This non-consideration indicated non-application of mind, affecting the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority.

(c) Camera and Tape Recorder (Grounds xiii and xiv): The detenu claimed these items belonged to others and were given to him for repairs. Correspondence and receipts confirming this were not forwarded to the Detaining Authority or provided to the detenu. The Detaining Authority admitted that these documents were not considered. The court held that these documents were material for determining whether the items were smuggled, and their non-consideration further demonstrated non-application of mind.

3. Material evidence not considered by the Detaining Authority:

The court emphasized that the non-consideration of material documents, such as receipts and correspondence related to the projector, camera, and tape recorder, indicated a lack of proper application of mind by the Detaining Authority. The Public Prosecutor's argument that the value of these items was small compared to the total value of seized goods was rejected. The court noted that the total value of goods in question was over Rs. 1,40,000, which was significant relative to the total alleged smuggled goods value of Rs. 2,49,637. The court concluded that the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority was vitiated due to improper application of mind.

Conclusion:

The court made the rule absolute in terms of prayer (a) and ordered the detenu to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other proceedings. The writ was directed to the Superintendent of Bombay Central Prison. The detenu was set at liberty.