Preventive detention and Section 123 burden of proof failed where the authority ignored key facts and applied the wrong premise.

Preventive detention was held unsustainable where the Detaining Authority proceeded on the mistaken premise that Section 123 of the Customs Act shifted the burden to the detenu to explain seized gold biscuits, even though the gold was not seized from him and he had not claimed ownership. That erroneous assumption infected the grounds of detention and showed non-application of mind to the material and vital facts. The court stated that subjective satisfaction in preventive detention must still rest on relevant material and proper consideration of proximate facts; on that basis, the detention order was vitiated and could not stand.

---

---

Issues: Whether the detention order was vitiated because the Detaining Authority wrongly invoked Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 and failed to apply its mind to the material and vital facts.

Analysis: The detention was founded on the premise that the detenu was bound to explain the seizure of gold biscuits and to disprove smuggling under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962. The record, however, showed that the gold was not seized from the detenu and he had not claimed ownership of it. The assumption that the burden of proof under Section 123 lay on the detenu was therefore patently erroneous. Since that mistaken premise pervaded the grounds of detention, the subjective satisfaction for preventive detention was not based on a proper consideration of the pertinent and proximate facts. In preventive detention matters, subjective satisfaction must still rest on relevant material and a proper application of mind to vital facts.

Conclusion: The detention order was vitiated by non-application of mind and was unsustainable; the issue is decided in favour of the petitioner.

---