Preventive detention in custody can stand where live material shows risk of future smuggling activity.

Preventive detention under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act was examined in the context of an accused already in custody, where the record showed specific intelligence, seizure of foreign-origin gold, recovery of foreign currency, and a statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act. The detention was supported by material indicating a live apprehension of future prejudicial conduct, and the court reiterated that preventive detention is distinct from criminal prosecution and is not barred merely because criminal proceedings are pending. The challenge based on alleged delay in communication was rejected because the order was executed, grounds were served, representations were considered, and statutory review steps were followed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the detention order under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 was vitiated on the grounds that the detenue was already in custody, the detaining authority allegedly lacked proper subjective satisfaction, and there was delay in communication of the detention order.

Analysis: The grounds of detention were founded on specific intelligence, seizure of foreign-origin gold, recovery of foreign currency, and the detenue's recorded statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. The detention was passed while the detenue was in custody in connection with the same smuggling incident, but the material showed a live basis for the apprehension of future prejudicial activity. The Court applied the settled principle that preventive detention is distinct from prosecution, that pendency of criminal proceedings does not by itself bar detention, and that the constitutional court's scrutiny is limited to whether relevant material existed, the authority applied its mind, and procedural safeguards were observed. The alleged delay in communication was rejected because the record showed timely execution of the order, service of grounds, consideration of representations, reference to the Advisory Board, and confirmation by the Central Government within the statutory framework.

Conclusion: The detention order was not vitiated, and the challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The preventive detention was upheld as having been passed on relevant material, with due observance of constitutional and statutory safeguards, and no ground for interference under writ jurisdiction was made out.

Ratio Decidendi: Preventive detention may lawfully be ordered against a person already in custody if relevant material shows a real possibility of future prejudicial conduct and the detaining authority has applied its mind to the statutory safeguards and procedural requirements.

---