2002 (3) TMI 55 - SC - Customs

Detention order dated 28th May, 2001 passed under Section 3(1)(i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 challenged Held that - The seriously doubtful position about the elementary and basic fact regarding the ownership of the baggage and the admitted inconclusive stage of the investigation in this regard could not legitimately help the authorities to pass any order of detention against the petitioner on the perfunctory and inchoate materials relied upon. Apart from the absence of any positive or concrete materials to connect the baggage in question with the petitioner, the nature of stand disclosed in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 1st respondent on this aspect does not really help the Authority to prove that the said material and such vitally relevant aspect was either adverted to or really considered before passing the order of detention. Consequently, the impugned order suffers the vice of total non-application of mind to a relevant and vital material touching question of the culpability as well as the necessity to order the detention of the petitioner. The impugned order of detention, therefore, has been rightly quashed and the writ petitioner ordered to be released from detention in prison.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Non-application of mind by the detaining authority.
2. Delay in considering the representations.
3. Validity of the detention order based on a solitary incident.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Non-application of mind by the detaining authority:
The petitioner contended that the detaining authority did not apply its mind before passing the detention order under Section 3(1)(i) of COFEPOSA. The petitioner argued that he was not involved in smuggling activities and that the seized goods did not belong to him. The detaining authority failed to consider the petitioner's consistent claim that the baggage without tags was not his. The court reiterated that preventive detention is not punitive but preventive, meant to stop future smuggling activities. The court cited several precedents emphasizing the importance of personal liberty and the need for a reasonable prognosis of future behavior based on past conduct. The court found that the detaining authority did not adequately consider the petitioner's background, including his status as an Engineering graduate and Managing Director of a public limited company, and his claim that the baggage did not belong to him.

2. Delay in considering the representations:
The petitioner sent a representation to the Commissioner of Customs stating that the seized goods were not his. This representation was not adequately considered before the detention order was passed. The court noted that the detaining authority must periodically review the need for continued detention and act fairly and reasonably. The court emphasized that the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction must not be arbitrary and should be based on a reasonable inference from the petitioner's past conduct and surrounding circumstances.

3. Validity of the detention order based on a solitary incident:
The court examined whether a single incident of smuggling could justify preventive detention. Citing precedents, the court noted that while a single act might not usually suffice, it could in certain circumstances if it indicated an organized activity or a likelihood of future smuggling. However, in this case, the court found that the solitary incident did not reasonably justify the detention. The petitioner had consistently claimed that the baggage was not his, and there was no concrete evidence linking him to the smuggling activity. The court concluded that the detaining authority's inference that the petitioner was likely to engage in future smuggling was unreasonable and unfounded.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the detention order, and ordered the petitioner's immediate release. The court found that the detaining authority had not applied its mind to the relevant facts and had based the detention on an unreasonable inference from a solitary incident. The judgment emphasized the importance of personal liberty and the need for careful consideration in preventive detention cases.