Preventive detention upheld where non-supply of referred shipping bills caused no prejudice and delay did not break proximate link.

Preventive detention was upheld because the shipping bills were not relied upon documents; supplying their particulars was sufficient, and the detenu showed no prejudice to the right of effective representation. The delay in passing the detention order was also not fatal, as the investigation involved extensive searches, document collection, and recording of statements, and the interval did not break the proximate link with the alleged prejudicial activities. The governing principle stated is that non-supply of a merely referred document does not vitiate detention unless it impairs representation rights, and delay will not defeat detention where the factual basis remains intact.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether non-supply of the shipping bills vitiated the detention order by denying the detenu an effective representation. (ii) Whether the delay in passing the detention order broke the proximate link with the alleged prejudicial activities.

Issue (i): Whether non-supply of the shipping bills vitiated the detention order by denying the detenu an effective representation.

Analysis: The shipping bills themselves were not treated as relied upon documents. What was supplied were the details of the shipping bills, containing the material particulars relevant to the detention grounds. The detention was founded on the larger body of documentary material and the statements recorded under the Customs law. The governing principle is that only those documents relied upon for reaching the requisite satisfaction must be supplied, and non-supply of a merely referred document does not vitiate detention unless prejudice to the right of representation is shown.

Conclusion: The non-supply of the shipping bills did not invalidate the detention order and was not in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the delay in passing the detention order broke the proximate link with the alleged prejudicial activities.

Analysis: The material showed that investigation involved extensive searches, collection of documents, and recording of statements of the petitioner and associates. The delay was explained by the scale of the inquiry and the need to collate evidence. On the facts, the interval between the alleged activities and the detention order did not destroy the basis for preventive detention.

Conclusion: The delay was not held fatal, and this issue was decided against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The detention order was upheld, as neither the alleged non-supply of documents nor the delay in passing the order warranted interference.

Ratio Decidendi: Preventive detention is not vitiated by non-supply of a document that was not actually relied upon for the detention satisfaction, unless the detenu shows resulting prejudice to the constitutional right of effective representation.

---