Preventive detention may follow a single concealed currency export attempt where circumstances show likely repetition despite possible prosecution.

Preventive detention can rest on a single attempted export of Indian currency if the act, viewed with its surrounding circumstances, reasonably indicates a likelihood of repetition; a planned and concealed attempt was treated as sufficiently grave for that inference. The availability of prosecution under the Customs Act does not, by itself, bar preventive detention, because the detaining authority may still act where it is satisfied that prosecution alone may not prevent further prejudicial conduct. The detention order was sustained on the basis of the authority's legally sufficient satisfaction.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a single act of attempted export of Indian currency, having regard to its nature and attendant circumstances, could justify preventive detention; (ii) Whether the possibility of prosecution under the Customs Act barred detention under the preventive detention law.

Issue (i): Whether a single act of attempted export of Indian currency, having regard to its nature and attendant circumstances, could justify preventive detention.

Analysis: The preventive purpose of detention is to forestall future prejudicial conduct, and a solitary act is not by itself irrelevant. What matters is whether the act, viewed with the surrounding circumstances, reasonably supports an inference that the person may repeat such conduct. A planned and concealed attempt to export a large amount of currency was treated as an act of sufficient gravity to indicate a future propensity.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the petitioner and in favour of the respondent; the solitary act was sufficient on the facts to support detention.

Issue (ii): Whether the possibility of prosecution under the Customs Act barred detention under the preventive detention law.

Analysis: The availability of prosecution is not an absolute bar to preventive detention. The detaining authority may proceed with detention where it forms the requisite satisfaction that prosecution alone may not be sufficient to prevent repetition of prejudicial acts. The court will not substitute its view for the authority's subjective satisfaction if the statutory basis is otherwise met.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the petitioner and in favour of the respondent; prosecution did not bar preventive detention.

Final Conclusion: The detention order was sustained as the grounds disclosed a legally sufficient basis for the detaining authority's satisfaction, and the writ petition failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Preventive detention may rest on a single act if its nature and surrounding circumstances reasonably indicate a likelihood of repetition, and the mere possibility of criminal prosecution does not preclude such detention where the authority is duly satisfied.

---