1987 (8) TMI 105 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to detention order under Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974.

Analysis:
1. The detention order was challenged on the grounds of lack of nexus between the alleged activity and the purpose of detention, non-application of mind by the detaining authority, undue delay in passing the detention order, and suppression of vital material by the sponsoring authority. The detenu was detained to prevent him from transporting smuggled goods, but the detaining authority failed to ascertain the actual allegation against the detenu, leading to a mechanical and unjustified detention order.

2. The first contention raised was regarding the lack of nexus between the alleged activity and the purpose of detention. The detaining authority ordered detention to prevent the detenu from transporting smuggled goods, but the detenu was not caught in the act of transportation. The detaining authority did not consider whether the detenu was abetting smuggling or dealing in smuggled goods, indicating a lack of application of mind. The detention order was passed mechanically without understanding the actual mischief to be prevented, leading to its quashing.

3. Another contention was the failure of the detaining authority to consider a complaint filed under Section 135 of the Customs Act against the detenu before passing the detention order. The complaint was filed two months before the detention order, but the detaining authority was not made aware of this fact. Referring to a Division Bench judgment, it was emphasized that the detaining authority must consider all relevant circumstances, including ongoing prosecutions, before passing a detention order. The failure to bring this material before the detaining authority demonstrated a lack of application of mind, leading to the quashing of the detention order.

4. The judgment concluded that due to the non-application of mind by the detaining authority in passing the detention order, the order was quashed, and the detenu was to be released unless required in another case. The petition challenging the detention order was allowed based on the grounds of lack of nexus, non-application of mind, and failure to consider relevant material, as highlighted during the analysis of the contentions raised by the petitioner's counsel.