Preventive detention cannot survive customs settlement and immunity, as the measure is meant to prevent future misconduct.

A pre-execution preventive detention order could not be executed after the customs dispute was conclusively settled, duty liability was determined, and immunity from penalty and prosecution was granted. The Court held that preventive detention is meant to prevent future prejudicial conduct, not to punish past acts, and that the changed legal and factual position removed the basis for detention. It also noted that a similarly placed co-detenue had already obtained revocation, so continued detention of the petitioner would be unjustified. The detention order was quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a pre-execution detention order under the preventive detention law could be sustained after the customs dispute had been settled by the Settlement Commission and the detenu had been granted immunity from penalty and prosecution.

Analysis: The settlement proceedings under the Customs Act culminated in a conclusive order accepting full and true disclosure, determining the duty liability and granting immunity from penalty and prosecution. The material placed before the Court also showed that a similarly placed co-detenue had already secured revocation of the detention order on the basis of the Advisory Board's view that there was no sufficient cause for detention. In these circumstances, continuing with the petitioner's detention would serve no preventive purpose, because the object of preventive detention is to prevent future prejudicial activity and not to punish past conduct. The Court found the petitioner entitled to the same treatment as the co-detenue and held that the changed factual and legal position made execution of the detention order unjustified.

Conclusion: The detention order could not be sustained and was quashed in the petitioner's favour.

---