Preventive detention under COFEPOSA upheld where delayed declaration service, custody, and remand-record objections caused no prejudice.

Preventive detention under COFEPOSA was upheld despite challenges based on delayed service of the Section 9(1) declaration, alleged territorial nexus defects, custody status, and non-placement of the full remand order. The Court noted that Section 9(1) fixes only the outer limit for making the declaration, not a statutory time-limit for communication, and no prejudice to representation was shown. It further treated the reference to Indian coastal waters as a typographical error, found sufficient material connecting the activities to Maharashtra, and held that detention in judicial custody was valid where the authority was aware of custody and had material suggesting likely release and continued prejudicial activity.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether delay in communication of the declaration under Section 9(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 vitiated the detention; (ii) Whether the declaration suffered from want of territorial nexus or non-application of mind because it referred to Indian coastal waters; (iii) Whether detention of a person already in judicial custody was invalid for want of compelling reasons; (iv) Whether non-placement of the full remand order before the detaining authority vitiated the detention.

Issue (i): Whether delay in communication of the declaration under Section 9(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 vitiated the detention.

Analysis: Section 9(1) prescribes only the maximum period for making the declaration. It does not fix any statutory time-limit for service of the declaration on the detenu. The Court held that the declaration could not be required to be communicated within five weeks, and the period taken for service in the facts of the case caused no prejudice to the detenu, who had sufficient opportunity to make a representation before the Advisory Board.

Conclusion: The contention was rejected and the detention was upheld on this ground, against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the declaration suffered from want of territorial nexus or non-application of mind because it referred to Indian coastal waters.

Analysis: The expression used in the declaration was treated as a typographical mistake, since Indian coastal waters formed part of Indian customs waters in the statutory scheme. The material before the authority showed that the smuggling activities and related arrangements had a clear nexus with Maharashtra, and the declaration was based on the statutory conditions under Section 9(1). The Court found no absence of application of mind.

Conclusion: The contention failed and the declaration was held valid, against the appellant.

Issue (iii): Whether detention of a person already in judicial custody was invalid for want of compelling reasons.

Analysis: An order of preventive detention can be passed against a person in custody if the authority is aware of the custody and there are compelling reasons, including a likelihood of release in the near future and a likelihood of prejudicial activity after release. The Court found that the grounds disclosed awareness of custody, repeated bail efforts, and sufficient material to infer possible release and future smuggling activity, despite criticism of the authority's sweeping statement on bail.

Conclusion: The detention was held not invalid on this ground, against the appellant.

Issue (iv): Whether non-placement of the full remand order before the detaining authority vitiated the detention.

Analysis: The substance of the remand order was before the detaining authority, and the absence of the full text did not affect subjective satisfaction or the detenu's right to make a representation. The Court agreed with the view taken below that no prejudice was shown.

Conclusion: The contention was rejected and the detention was upheld on this ground, against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The preventive detention order was sustained in its entirety and the challenge to its legality failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A preventive detention order may be sustained where the authority has subjective satisfaction supported by material, the statutory scheme does not prescribe a time-limit for serving a declaration under Section 9(1), and no prejudice is shown from procedural irregularities that do not impair representation or decision-making.

---