Preventive detention under COFEPOSA fails when disclosed material shows only one incident and no real future smuggling risk.

A preventive detention order under COFEPOSA was held unsustainable where the disclosed material showed only a solitary smuggling incident, the detenu had already surrendered his passport to customs, and no material indicated any real likelihood of future smuggling, clandestine foreign travel, or continued prejudicial activity. The court stressed that subjective satisfaction for preventive detention must rest on relevant material actually disclosed to the detenu, and that the authorities cannot sustain detention by relying on assumptions, undisclosed material, or facts later introduced through the counter affidavit. On that basis, the detention order was quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the detention order was sustainable when the detenu had voluntarily surrendered his passport, the record disclosed only a solitary incident, and no material was shown to indicate a likelihood of future smuggling or clandestine travel.

Analysis: The detention was invoked under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, for preventing smuggling of gold into India. The detenu's statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act showed that the incident was his first trip abroad and that he had no intention of repeating the act. His passport was already with the customs authorities, and the record contained no material showing that he could still travel on a false or forged passport, make clandestine visits abroad, or engage in any further smuggling activity. The grounds of detention did not disclose any such basis, and the counter affidavit could not introduce fresh or non-existent material to sustain the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. Preventive detention must rest on disclosed and relevant material, and the power cannot be upheld on assumptions or on material not communicated to the detenu.

Conclusion: The detention order was unsustainable and was quashed, as it was not supported by relevant material showing a real necessity for preventive detention.

Ratio Decidendi: A preventive detention order cannot be sustained where the disclosed material shows only an isolated incident, the detenu is already effectively prevented from leaving the country, and the authority relies on undisclosed or non-existent material to reach subjective satisfaction.

---