Preventive detention may rely on Section 108 statements and corroborative material when subjective satisfaction is properly formed.

Preventive detention under the COFEPOSA Act may rest on Section 108 Customs statements and corroborative surrounding material, because subjective satisfaction is not governed by the ordinary rules of criminal evidence; the detention orders were upheld on that basis. Non-supply of CCTV footage did not vitiate detention where it was not a relied-upon document, and no material misstatement was found in the detention record. Custody of the detenues did not bar detention when the authority was aware of that custody and the likelihood of bail. The Advisory Board was held to have discharged its statutory function, with no denial of opportunity or constitutional infirmity established.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether detention under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 could validly rest on statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 and related materials; (ii) Whether non-supply of CCTV footage, alleged factual misstatements, and the detenues' custody and bail position vitiated the detention orders; (iii) Whether the Advisory Board failed to perform its function under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974.

Issue (i): Whether detention under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 could validly rest on statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 and related materials.

Analysis: Preventive detention under the Act is based on subjective satisfaction and not on proof by the standards applicable to criminal trials. The material before the detaining authority may include confession statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, and the ordinary rules of evidence do not control such administrative satisfaction. The Court found that the detention orders were not founded solely on those statements, but on a chain of surrounding circumstances, seizure-related material, and corroborative facts. It also held that the alleged retraction did not disable the detaining authority from relying on the statements along with the other materials.

Conclusion: The detention orders were not invalid for reliance on Section 108 statements and allied materials.

Issue (ii): Whether non-supply of CCTV footage, alleged factual misstatements, and the detenues' custody and bail position vitiated the detention orders.

Analysis: The CCTV footage was not treated as a relied-upon basis for the detention, and therefore its non-supply did not prejudice the right to make an effective representation. The Court found no material factual misstatement in the detention order regarding the statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. It also held that the detenues being in custody did not by itself bar preventive detention when the authority was aware of the custody position and of the possibility of release on bail; the fact that some accused in connected cases had obtained bail supported the authority's assessment. The contention that absence of direct seizure from the detenues defeated detention was rejected because smuggling, as understood for preventive detention purposes, includes abetment and dealing with smuggled goods.

Conclusion: None of these grounds vitiated the detention orders.

Issue (iii): Whether the Advisory Board failed to perform its function under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974.

Analysis: The Advisory Board's role is to examine whether there is sufficient cause for detention, not to conduct a full adversarial inquiry or to act as counsel for the detenue. The Court held that the Board was not obliged to independently summon further records or materials beyond the file placed before it in the absence of a request or showing of denial of opportunity. The detenues had an opportunity to submit representations, and no violation of Articles 21 or 22 of the Constitution of India was made out.

Conclusion: The Advisory Board's opinion did not suffer from illegality or non-application of mind.

Final Conclusion: The Court found the preventive detention orders to be supported by valid materials and held that no constitutional or statutory infirmity was established, so the writ petitions were dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: In preventive detention proceedings, the authority may rely on relevant material, including confession statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, if such material forms part of the subjective satisfaction recorded on the basis of surrounding circumstances and corroborative facts, and the ordinary rules of evidence do not govern such administrative detention.

---