Preventive detention under COFEPOSA survives document defects, clerical slips, and execution delay where no prejudice is shown.

In preventive detention under COFEPOSA, non-supply or illegibility of some relied upon documents did not vitiate the detention where the translations were legible, the disputed papers were subsidiary, and no real prejudice was shown. Section 5-A applied the severability principle, so defect in one ground did not invalidate the detention when the remaining grounds independently sustained it. A drafting discrepancy was treated as a clerical lapse, not non-application of mind, because the grounds read as a whole showed consideration of the relevant material. Delay in execution also did not render the grounds stale, as it was explained by translation, administrative processing, and tracing efforts.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether non-supply or illegibility of some relied upon documents, including missing customs endorsements on certain bills of entry, vitiated the detention orders; (ii) whether section 5-A of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 saved the detention orders despite some grounds or documents being defective; (iii) whether the drafting discrepancy in the grounds of detention showed non-application of mind; and (iv) whether delay in executing the detention orders rendered the grounds stale.

Issue (i): whether non-supply or illegibility of some relied upon documents, including missing customs endorsements on certain bills of entry, vitiated the detention orders.

Analysis: The supplied translations were legible, and the alleged illegibility did not show that any material portion was withheld from the detenus. The disputed documents were treated as subsidiary evidence supporting the basic transaction. As to the four bills of entry lacking endorsements in the supplied copies, the court held that the individual transactions were separate and distinct, even if they arose from a common design. The omission therefore did not establish prejudice affecting the entire case.

Conclusion: The contention failed and the detention orders were not vitiated on this ground.

Issue (ii): whether section 5-A of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 saved the detention orders despite some grounds or documents being defective.

Analysis: The court applied the statutory severability principle. Once the statute deems each ground to be separate, failure of one ground does not invalidate the detention if the remaining grounds independently sustain it. The constitutional requirement under Article 22(5) was held not to override this statutory scheme in the manner suggested by the petitioners.

Conclusion: The detention orders remained valid because the surviving grounds were sufficient.

Issue (iii): whether the drafting discrepancy in the grounds of detention showed non-application of mind.

Analysis: The mistaken reference in one paragraph was treated as a clerical or drafting lapse. The grounds, read as a whole, showed that the detaining authority had applied its mind to the relevant material and had not merely copied another detenu's grounds in a manner that affected the decision-making process.

Conclusion: No non-application of mind was established.

Issue (iv): whether delay in executing the detention orders rendered the grounds stale.

Analysis: The delay was explained by the need for translation, administrative processing, and repeated efforts to trace the detenus, who were not available at their premises. The court held that delay by itself does not invalidate detention unless prejudice or staleness is shown on the facts.

Conclusion: The delay did not vitiate the detention orders.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions were rejected because none of the asserted defects undermined the validity of the detention orders, and the orders were upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Under section 5-A of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, a detention order is not invalidated by failure of one ground if the remaining grounds independently sustain the detention; procedural defects must also be shown to have caused real prejudice to the right of representation or to the subjective satisfaction.

---