Preventive detention under COFEPOSA fails when the detaining authority ignores an admitted surrender of the passport.

Preventive detention under Section 3(1)(i) of the COFEPOSA Act depends on valid subjective satisfaction that future smuggling activity is likely. Where the detenu had admittedly surrendered the passport, that material circumstance had to be considered because it directly affected the ability to travel abroad and commit smuggling. The detaining authority's failure to meaningfully address the surrendered passport vitiated the satisfaction on future propensity, and the detention order was quashed. The alternative precedent cited by the respondents did not cure this defect or displace the governing principle requiring consideration of the passport's unavailability.

---

---

Issues: Whether a detention order passed under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 could be sustained when the detaining authority did not consider that the detenu had voluntarily surrendered the passport, thereby foreclosing the possibility of future smuggling activities.

Analysis: The detention was founded on clause (i) of Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act, namely, prevention of smuggling activities. The fact that the detenu had voluntarily surrendered the passport was admitted and was not disputed. The material before the detaining authority did not show any meaningful consideration of this circumstance, even though the surrender of the passport directly affected the alleged future capability to travel abroad and engage in smuggling. On the authority of the governing precedent, where the passport is unavailable and the detention is based only on the apprehension of future smuggling, the absence of such consideration renders the subjective satisfaction vulnerable. The Court also noted that the alternative precedent relied upon by the respondents did not answer this question and therefore did not assist them.

Conclusion: The detention order was unsustainable and was quashed, with the petition succeeding on this ground.

Ratio Decidendi: Where preventive detention under Section 3(1)(i) of the COFEPOSA Act is founded on the likelihood of future smuggling, the detaining authority must consider the effect of an admitted surrender or impounding of the passport, since ignoring that material circumstance vitiates the subjective satisfaction.

---