1979 (6) TMI 134 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Staleness of detention grounds.
2. Rational nexus of materials under ground No. 3.
3. Conformity of the detention order with the Act.
4. Consideration of vital and material facts by the Detaining Authority.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Staleness of Detention Grounds:
The petitioner argued that the grounds for detention were stale and not proximate in time to provide a rational nexus between the incidents relied on and the satisfaction arrived at. The Court found this contention well-founded as grounds Nos. 1 and 2 referred to incidents from 1977, with adjudicatory proceedings concluded the same year. These grounds were deemed too remote to furnish a nexus for the detention purpose.

2. Rational Nexus of Materials Under Ground No. 3:
Despite the staleness of the first two grounds, the detention could still be sustained under Section 5-A of the Act based on the third ground alone. The petitioner contended that the detention order aimed to prevent the detenu from keeping smuggled goods was illegal as the detenu was dealing in those goods. The Court clarified that under Clause (iii) of Sub-section (1) of Section 3, a detention order could be made to prevent a person from engaging in transporting, concealing, or keeping smuggled goods. Clause (iv) pertains to preventing a person from dealing in smuggled goods, which involves retailing or distributing. The Court rejected the petitioner's contention, holding that mere custody of smuggled goods suffices to attract Clause (iii).

3. Conformity of the Detention Order with the Act:
The petitioner argued that the detention order was not in conformity with Clause (iii) of Sub-section (1) of Section 3, as it did not state that detention was necessary to prevent the detenu from engaging in keeping smuggled goods. The Court found substance in this argument, emphasizing that the Detaining Authority must be satisfied that it is necessary to prevent a person from engaging in such activities. The order's language did not reflect this, leading the Court to conclude that the Detaining Authority had not applied its mind properly.

4. Consideration of Vital and Material Facts by the Detaining Authority:
The petitioner contended that vital and material facts were not placed before the Detaining Authority. The Court noted that the show cause notice issued to the detenu and his reply, along with the adjudication order, were not considered by the Detaining Authority. These materials were vital and could have influenced the Detaining Authority's satisfaction. The Court cited a similar case, Ashadevi v. K. Shivaraj, where the Supreme Court held that non-consideration of a retracted confessional statement by the Detaining Authority vitiated the satisfaction required for detention.

Conclusion:
The Court quashed the detention order, directing the release of the detenu, R. Sathyadass, due to the staleness of grounds, improper application of Clause (iii), and non-consideration of vital facts by the Detaining Authority.