TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (3) TMI 55
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Cellphones with accessories 50 Nos., Siemens C35 Cellphones with accessories 50 Nos., Nokia Cellphones adapter 100 Nos. Nokia 5110 Cellphone batteries 100 Nos. were recovered. According to the grounds of detention, the value of the seized goods was Rs. 13,90,000/-. His Boarding Pass and Customs Declaration Card were also seized. It is alleged that in his voluntary statement he admitted that he had visited Singapore twice earlier as a tourist he had gone to Singapore on 29th March, 2001 and that his friend helped him in procuring Cellphones to market them in India for monetary consideration. 2. Petitioner was arrested on 31st March 2001and his bail application was rejected by the trial Court. Thereafter, he sent a representation dated 24th April, 2001 to the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai through the Superintendent, Central Prison, Chennai, stating that the seized goods did not belong to him. Thereafter, on 28th May, 2001 the impugned detention order was passed. 3.At the time of hearing of the matter, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was total non-application of mind by the detaining authority before passing the impugned order; relevant record was not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ctive satisfaction about the futuristic judgment that the delinquent was likely to repeat his offence and thereby prejudicially affect the maintenance of supplies and services essential to community." The Court finally dismissed the matter after considering grounds of detention but observed thus :- "But to jail a man on subjective satisfaction of possible prejudicial activity and to forget about him after the statutory formalities have been performed is not fair to the constitutional guarantees. It is appropriate for a democratic Government not merely to confine preventive detention to serious cases but also to review periodically the need for the continuance of incarceration." 8.It appears that the aforesaid aspect to review periodically the need for the continuance of incarceration is forgotten. 9.Similarly, in Debu Mahato v. State of West Bengal [(1974) 4 SCC 135 at Page 138] this Court observed as under :- "We fail to see how one solitary isolated act of wagon breaking committed by the petitioner could possibly persuade any reasonable person to reach the satisfaction that unless the petitioner was detained he would in all probability indulge in further acts of wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndulge in similar prejudicial activity." The Court further observed (in para 53) thus : — "In matters touching liberty, greater care is called for on the part of the authorities exercising powers of detention." 11.Recently, this Court in V.C. Mohan v. Union of India & Ors. [JT 2002 (2) SC 365] held as under : "The accepted methodology of governmental working should always be in tune with the concept of fairness and not de hors the same - a person is being placed under detention without trial and there is neither any scope for overzcalous nor acting in a manner without due and proper application of mind - in either of the situation law Courts should be able to protect the individual from the administrative ipse dixit. The draconian concept of law has had its departure quite some time back and rule of law is the order of the day. It is this rule of law which should prompt the law Courts to act in a manner fair and reasonable having due regard to the nature of the offences and vis-a-vis the liberty of the citizens." The Court further observed thus :- "Preventive detention admittedly is an 'invasion of personal liberty' and it is a duty cast on the law Courts to sat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ingle incident of smuggling that the person may indulge in smuggling activity but for that purpose antecedents and nature of the activities carried out by a person are required to be taken into consideration for reaching justifiable satisfaction that the person was engaged in smuggling and that with a view to prevent, it was necessary to detain him. It is also settled law that an order of preventive detention is founded on a reasonable prognosis of the future behaviour of a person based on his past conduct judged in the light of the surrounding circumstances. Such past conduct may consist of one single act or of a series of acts. It must be of such a nature that an inference can reasonably be drawn from it that the person concerned would be likely to repeat such acts so as to warrant his detention. If there is non-application of mind by the authority on this aspect, then the Court is required and is bond to protect the citizen's personal liberty which is guaranteed under the Constitution. Subjective satisfaction of the authority under the law is not absolute and should not be unreasonable. The question therefore, would be from the past conduct of the petitioner as set out in the gr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y view, are well and firmly settled. 16.The petitioner has been ordered to be detained by the orders of the Government of Tamil Nadu in G.O. No. SR. I/531-7/2001 Public (SC) Dept., dated 28-5-2001 in exercise of the powers under Section 3(1)(i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 [hereinafter referred to as "The Act"] and kept in custody in the Central Prison, Chennai. From the grounds on which the said order came to be made, it could be seen that the incident said to have occurred on 30-3-2001 when the petitioner arrived from Singapore by IC 556 at Chennai Anna International Airport was the main basis. The allegation against the petitioner is that though he brought in his baggage (a) Panasonic GD92 Cell phones with accessories 100 Nos. (b) Nokia 3310 Cell phone with accessories 50 Nos; (c) Siemens C35 Cell phones with accessories 50 Nos; (d) Nokia Cell phone adapter 100 Nos; (e) Nokia 5110 Cell phone batteries 100 Nos. without having any valid document for their lawful import, not only he grossly mis-declared the value of the goods in his possession, but after completing immigration formalities and collection of his baggage a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Attorney General for India & Ors v Amratlal Prajivandas & Ors. by a Constitution Bench of 9 Judges reported in [1994 (5) SCC 54], has laid down the law on the said aspect succinctly and conclusively in the following terms : "48. Now, It is beyond dispute that an order of detention can be based upon one single ground. Several decisions of this Court have held that even one prejudicial act can be treated as sufficient for forming the requisite satisfaction for detaining the person. In Debu Mahato v. State of W.B. It was observed that while ordinarily speaking one act may not be sufficient to form the requisite satisfaction, there is no such invariable rule and that in a given case one act may suffice. That was a case of wagon-breaking and having regard to the nature of the Act, it was held that one act is sufficient. The same principle was reiterated in Anil Dey v. State of W.B. It was a case of theft of railway signal material. Here too one act was held to be sufficient. Similarly, in Israil SK v. District Magistrate of West Dinajpur and Dharua Kanu v. State of W.B. single act of theft of telegraph copper wires in huge quantity and removal of railway fishplates respectively was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oes not repeat his activity in future. So far as the facts on record in this case are concerned, it is seen that a stand has been taken for the petitioner, at any rate, from the time of filing the bail application on 18-4-2001, that the baggage in question did not belong to him, that the earlier statement obtained was under threat, coercion and undue influence and that those baggage did not contain any tag also to connect the same with him. That apart the specific stand taken for the petitioner is also that the baggage containing the goods in question were in the name of one Babu with his ticket number and address and no action could be taken against him before recording a finding properly and deciding on the basis or any concrete material the ownership of the disputed baggage. All the more so when the Department itself has been after the said person also and the matter has not reached to any final conclusion. As for the grievance that these relevant materials have not been adverted to or considered by the Detaining Authority before ordering the detention of the petitioner, in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 1st respondent Detaining Authority, it is admitted that inves....