Preventive detention and rebuttable statutory presumptions: detention failed where no fair chance was given to rebut and material was infirm.

Preventive detention under COFEPOSA cannot rest on a rebuttable statutory presumption unless the person is given a fair opportunity to displace it; the detention here failed on that basis because no such opportunity was afforded. The detention order also failed because the authority relied on infirm material: the alleged silver did not match in purity, there were weight discrepancies, the offer to identify supposed fictitious parties was ignored, and unexplained seized packets remained unaccounted for. These defects showed mechanical exercise of power and absence of valid subjective satisfaction. The detention order was therefore quashed and release directed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a detention order under the COFEPOSA Act could be sustained on the basis of a rebuttable presumption under Section 11M of the Customs Act, 1962 without affording an opportunity to rebut it. (ii) Whether the detaining authority had applied its mind to the relevant material and reached valid subjective satisfaction.

Issue (i): Whether a detention order under the COFEPOSA Act could be sustained on the basis of a rebuttable presumption under Section 11M of the Customs Act, 1962 without affording an opportunity to rebut it.

Analysis: The statutory presumption under Section 11M is not conclusive. It arises only after the prescribed conditions are met and remains open to rebuttal. A person against whom such a presumption is invoked must be given a fair and reasonable opportunity to displace it. The detention in the present case proceeded on that presumption without such opportunity.

Conclusion: The detention could not be sustained on that basis.

Issue (ii): Whether the detaining authority had applied its mind to the relevant material and reached valid subjective satisfaction.

Analysis: The material relied upon was found to be infirm. The silver attributed to the petitioner did not tally in purity with the articles allegedly purchased by him, there was discrepancy in weight, the offer to identify the alleged fictitious parties was ignored, and the investigation left other seized packets unexplained. These circumstances showed that the order rested on non-existent or untested material and that the detaining authority had acted mechanically rather than independently.

Conclusion: The subjective satisfaction was vitiated and the detention order was invalid.

Final Conclusion: The preventive detention order was quashed and the petitioner was directed to be released forthwith.

Ratio Decidendi: Preventive detention cannot be upheld where the detaining authority relies on non-existent or untested material and fails to afford a fair opportunity to rebut a rebuttable statutory presumption; subjective satisfaction must be based on relevant, objectively considered material.

---