9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (3) TMI 444 - SC - CustomsChallenge to detention order - smuggling of contraband - non-application of mind by the detaining authority due to the overlapping charges under clauses (i) to (iv) of Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act - HELD THAT - The contentions raised by the DRI regarding the all-pervasive role of the detenu and his propensity to indulge in such smuggling activities detrimental to the interest of the nation was considered in juxtaposition with the contention raised by the accused; on the basis of the investigation carried out thus far. The specific ground raised by the prosecution of apprehension of involvement in similar type of smuggling activity was reckoned by the jurisdictional Magistrate while granting bail and imposing conditions to prevent the detenu from engaging in such smuggling activities. In Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana and others 2024 (1) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT it was held held that the observations in Rekha v. State of T.N. 2011 (4) TMI 1217 - SUPREME COURT held that preventive detention is impermissible when the ordinary law of the land is sufficient to deal with the situation was per incuriam to the Constitution Bench decision in Haradhan Saha v. State of W.B. 1974 (8) TMI 104 - SUPREME COURT in the limited judicial review available to constitutional courts in preventive detention matters. The Courts would be incapable of interference by substituting their own reasoning to upset the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority especially since preventive detention law is not punitive but preventive and precautionary. Likewise in the present case it is not concerned as to whether the conditions imposed by the Magistrate would have taken care of the apprehension expressed by the detaining authority; of the detenu indulging in further smuggling activities. It is more concerned with the aspect that the detaining authority did not consider the efficacy of the conditions and enter any satisfaction however subjective it is as to the conditions not being sufficient to restrain the detenu from indulging in such activities. The criminal prosecution launched and the preventive detention ordered are on the very same allegations of organised smuggling activities through a network set up revealed on successive raids carried on at various locations on specific information received leading to recovery of huge cache of contraband. When bail was granted by the jurisdictional Court that too on conditions the detaining authority ought to have examined whether they were sufficient to curb the evil of further indulgence in identical activities; which is the very basis of the preventive detention ordered. The detention order being silent on that aspect we interfere with the detention order only on the ground of the detaining authority having not looked into the conditions imposed by the Magistrate while granting bail for the very same offence; the allegations in which also have led to the preventive detention assailed herein to enter a satisfaction as to whether those conditions are sufficient or not to restrain the detenu from indulging in further like activities of smuggling. Conclusion - The detention order was invalid due to the detaining authority s failure to consider whether the bail conditions were adequate to prevent further smuggling activities. The order of detention is set aside - appeal allowed.
ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The primary issues considered in this judgment include: 1. Whether the detention order under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA Act) was justified given the procedural compliance and substantive grounds presented. 2. Whether there was a non-application of mind by the detaining authority due to the overlapping charges under clauses (i) to (iv) of Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act. 3. Whether the reference to a narcotics conviction, which was under appeal, affected the validity of the detention order. 4. Whether the failure to present the application for cancellation of bail to the detaining authority constituted a procedural lapse affecting the detention order. 5. Whether the conditions imposed by the Magistrate while granting bail were sufficient to prevent the detenu from engaging in further smuggling activities, and whether the detaining authority considered these conditions adequately. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS 1. Non-application of Mind by the Detaining Authority The detaining authority's decision was challenged on the grounds of non-application of mind, as the allegations under Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act were applied in an omnibus manner. The Court examined whether the detenu's activities fell under all clauses of Section 3(1) and found that the detenu was involved in smuggling, abetting, and dealing in smuggled goods, which justified the application of all four clauses. The Court referred to precedents, including Narendra Purshotam Umrao v. B.B. Gujral, to support the view that overlapping charges in smuggling cases do not necessarily indicate non-application of mind. 2. Reference to Narcotics Conviction The appellant argued that the detention order improperly referenced a narcotics conviction, which was under appeal. The Court clarified that the reference was made to highlight the detenu's propensity for illegal activities and not as a ground for detention. The Court found no live link between the narcotics case and the detention order, thus dismissing this ground for challenge. 3. Application for Cancellation of Bail The appellant contended that the application for cancellation of bail was not presented to the detaining authority, which could have influenced the decision. The Court noted that the application was filed shortly before the detention order and was not pursued by the department. The Court concluded that the non-supply of this application did not vitiate the detention order, as the detaining authority could not speculate on the outcome of the bail cancellation. 4. Consideration of Bail Conditions The Court identified a significant oversight by the detaining authority in not considering the conditions imposed by the Magistrate while granting bail. The detaining authority failed to assess whether these conditions were sufficient to prevent further smuggling activities. The Court emphasized the importance of this consideration, as highlighted in Rameshwar Lal Patwari v. State of Bihar, where the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority must be based on a thorough examination of all relevant factors. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Court held that while the procedural and substantive grounds for detention under the COFEPOSA Act were largely justified, the failure to consider the sufficiency of bail conditions constituted a critical oversight. The Court quoted Rameshwar Lal Patwari, emphasizing the need for careful scrutiny of detention orders due to their preventive nature. The Court concluded that the detention order was invalid due to the detaining authority's failure to consider whether the bail conditions were adequate to prevent further smuggling activities. The appeal was allowed, and the detention order was set aside, resulting in the release of the detenu.
|
