https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192269 In preventive detention for smuggling, a single incident can support subjective satisfaction where surrounding circumstances and the detenu's own statement indicate participation in organised smuggling activity; the detention order was therefore not invalid for relying on one interception and seizure. A lapse of about five months did not vitiate the order because the delay was satisfactorily explained and did not break the live nexus or show mala fides. The existence of criminal prosecution did not bar preventive detention, as detention is preventive rather than punitive; the order was upheld because it was aimed at preventing further prejudicial activity, not bypassing the criminal law. en-us Mon, 16 Dec 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 27 May 2017 13:22:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192269 In preventive detention for smuggling, a single incident can support subjective satisfaction where surrounding circumstances and the detenu's own statement indicate participation in organised smuggling activity; the detention order was therefore not invalid for relying on one interception and seizure. A lapse of about five months did not vitiate the order because the delay was satisfactorily explained and did not break the live nexus or show mala fides. The existence of criminal prosecution did not bar preventive detention, as detention is preventive rather than punitive; the order was upheld because it was aimed at preventing further prejudicial activity, not bypassing the criminal law. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 16 Dec 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192269