Preventive detention cannot stand where ordinary criminal law is adequate and future prejudicial activity is too remote.

Preventive detention under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act was held unsustainable where the detenue's passport had been retained and the material did not show a real likelihood of future smuggling activity. The Court reiterated that preventive detention is an exceptional measure that must remain within narrow limits because it affects personal liberty under Article 21, and that it cannot be invoked when ordinary criminal law is adequate to address the alleged conduct. On the facts, the possibility of foreign travel and prejudicial activity was remote, so the detention order was quashed and set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the preventive detention order under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 was sustainable when the detenu's passport had been retained and ordinary criminal law was adequate to deal with the alleged conduct.

Analysis: Preventive detention is an exceptional measure and must be confined within narrow limits because it directly affects the liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Where the ordinary law can address the alleged conduct, recourse to preventive detention is not warranted. On the facts, the retained passport made any likelihood of the detenu travelling abroad and indulging in smuggling activity remote, and the material did not justify resort to preventive detention as the ordinary punitive process was sufficient.

Conclusion: The detention order was unsustainable and was quashed and set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Preventive detention cannot be sustained when the ordinary penal law is adequate to meet the situation and the factual basis for apprehending future prejudicial activity is remote or absent.

---