Preventive detention on a solitary smuggling incident may stand where facts show conscious involvement and likely repetition.

A solitary smuggling incident may support preventive detention where the surrounding facts show prior arrangement, conscious participation and a reasonable basis to apprehend repetition. Delay in dealing with the detenu's representation will not vitiate detention if the interval is explained by legitimate consultation and shows no avoidable procrastination. Delay in passing or executing the detention order is likewise not fatal when accounted for by screening, translation, tracing the detenu and other administrative steps. The note also states that the Central Government's scrutiny under the COFEPOSA framework is satisfied when the record shows prompt consideration of the State report and a timely decision.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a solitary incident of smuggling, on the facts disclosed, could sustain the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction that the detenu was likely to repeat such activity; (ii) whether delay in considering the detenu's representation vitiated the continued detention; (iii) whether the time taken in passing and executing the detention order rendered the detention illegal; and (iv) whether the Central Government failed to exercise its power of scrutiny under Section 11 of the COFEPOSA Act within reasonable time.

Issue (i): whether a solitary incident of smuggling, on the facts disclosed, could sustain the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction that the detenu was likely to repeat such activity.

Analysis: The detenu's statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 showed prior arrangement, knowledge, and participation in concealment of the contraband. The Court treated the single incident as one involving preparation and conscious involvement, which could reasonably support an inference of future prejudicial conduct. A solitary incident does not, by itself, rule out preventive detention where the facts disclose potentiality for repetition.

Conclusion: The challenge based on a solitary incident failed and the detention was upheld on this ground.

Issue (ii): whether delay in considering the detenu's representation vitiated the continued detention.

Analysis: The representation was dealt with after obtaining comments from the sponsoring authority. The Court held that such consultation was not impermissible and that the material showed no lack of diligence or avoidable procrastination. The interval taken in the process was treated as reasonably explained in the circumstances.

Conclusion: The detention was not rendered illegal on the ground of delay in consideration of the representation.

Issue (iii): whether the time taken in passing and executing the detention order rendered the detention illegal.

Analysis: The delay before passing the order was explained by screening, departmental processing, and translation of documents into the language known to the detenu. The delay in execution was explained by the steps taken to trace the detenu after he was on bail, and the Court found no apathy or lethargy on the part of the authorities. Subsequent delay in execution did not vitiate the subjective satisfaction underlying the original order.

Conclusion: The detention was not vitiated by delay in passing or executing the order.

Issue (iv): whether the Central Government failed to exercise its power of scrutiny under Section 11 of the COFEPOSA Act within reasonable time.

Analysis: The affidavit placed before the Court showed receipt of the State Government's report, consideration by the authorised officer, and a decision within a short span. The Court accepted that the Central Government had exercised its supervisory power with reasonable expedition and rejected the objection based on alleged non-consideration or delay.

Conclusion: The challenge under Section 11 of the COFEPOSA Act failed.

Final Conclusion: The detention order and the continued detention were held to be legal, and the petition was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A solitary act of smuggling may justify preventive detention where the surrounding facts disclose conscious involvement, prior preparation, and a reasonable basis for apprehending repetition, and administrative steps taken with reasonable expedition in considering representations and statutory scrutiny do not vitiate detention.

---