Preventive detention safeguards under COFEPOSA affirmed: timely disclosure, relied-upon material, and Section 108 statements were sufficient.

Preventive detention under COFEPOSA was upheld where the Court found no breach of Article 22(5) or Section 3(3) from the timing of CCTV footage supplied in compact discs, because the material was furnished within the statutory period and no prejudice was shown. It also held that only relied-upon material need be placed before the detaining authority, so non-production of the entire laptop did not vitiate the order. The statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act was treated as admissible for detention purposes, and the profit-sharing account from the laptop was usable without Section 65B(4) certification in these proceedings.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the delay in showing the CCTV footage in the compact discs violated Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and Section 3(3) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act; (ii) Whether non-production of the entire laptop before the detaining authority vitiated the detention order; (iii) Whether the statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the profit-sharing account taken from the laptop could be relied on, including in the absence of certification under Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Issue (i): Whether the delay in showing the CCTV footage in the compact discs violated Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and Section 3(3) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act.

Analysis: The CCTV footage was relied upon only to identify a person referred to in the detenu's statement and was supplied in compact disc form on the date of arrest. The discs were played before the detenu within the statutory period of fifteen days, and the detenu failed to show any prejudice from the interval between supply and viewing. The right under Article 22(5) and the communication requirement under Section 3(3) are satisfied when the relied-upon material is furnished in time and made available for effective representation.

Conclusion: The contention was rejected and no violation of Article 22(5) or Section 3(3) was found.

Issue (ii): Whether non-production of the entire laptop before the detaining authority vitiated the detention order.

Analysis: Only the materials relied upon by the detaining authority are required to be placed before it and supplied to the detenu. A laptop may contain large amounts of irrelevant material, and the sponsoring authority is not bound to produce material that is not relied upon for forming subjective satisfaction. The detention order was based on the relevant printouts and documents, not on the entire contents of the device.

Conclusion: The contention was rejected and the detention order was not vitiated on this ground.

Issue (iii): Whether the statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the profit-sharing account taken from the laptop could be relied on, including in the absence of certification under Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Analysis: A person summoned and examined under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 is not, at that stage, a person accused of an offence for the purpose of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. The statement recorded under that provision was therefore not hit by the privilege against self-incrimination. As to the profit-sharing account, the proceedings under the preventive detention law were not judicial proceedings under the Evidence Act, and the statutory certificate requirements governing evidence in court proceedings did not control the detaining authority's assessment of subjective satisfaction.

Conclusion: The statement and the profit-sharing account were held to be usable for the detention decision, and the challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The Court upheld the preventive detention order and found no legal infirmity in the continued detention of the detenu.

---