IMPORTANT POINT
An order of preventive detention is founded on a reasonable prognosis of future behaviour of a person based on his post conduct judged in light of surrounding circumstances.

JUDGMENT

Shah, J.-Petitioner has challenged the detention order dated 28th May, 2001 passed under Section 3(1)(i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as "COFEPOSA") with a view to prevent him from smuggling goods in future. The allegations against the petitioner in the grounds of detention are that he was holding an Indian Passport dated 26th October, 1994 and he arrived from Singapore on 30th March, 2001 at Chennai Airport. After completing migration formalities, he collected his baggages and was proceeding to exit gate where he was intercepted by Customs Intelligence Officer on suspicion that he might be carrying any dutiable goods. From his possession, Panasonic GD 92 Cellphones with accessories 100 Nos., Nokia 3310 Cellphones with accessories 50 Nos., Siemens C35 Cellphones with accessories 50 Nos., Nokia cellphone 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, 2001 and 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 placed before the detaining authority and that there was delay in considering the representations. For the first ground, it has been contended that the petitioner was not involved in any smuggling activities and for the time being presuming that goods seized were of the petitioner it would hardly be a ground for detaining him under the COFEPOSA. The detaining authority has not considered the fact that it was the contention of the petitioner all throughout that he had not brought the said cellphones. For that purpose, he submitted that the boarding card was his but the baggages having no tags were not belonging to him. In any set of circumstances for the alleged incident, criminal prosecution was pending against him and his bail applications were rejected, therefore, there was no necessity of detaining the petitioner.

4. As against this, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that even though it is a solitary incident, goods worth Rs.13 lakhs and above were found from the possession of the petitioner and that it has been admitted by him that previously also he had gone twice to Singapore, therefore, subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority cannot be said to be, in any way, arbitrary.

5. Before deciding the contention raised by the petitioner, it is to be reiterated that the Preventive Detention is not a punitive Act and it is not alternative to criminal trial under the law. It does not empower the authority to punish a person without trial. Its purpose is to prevent a person from indulging in activities, such as smuggling and or such other anti social activities as provided under the Preventive Detention Law.

6. In Mohd. Subrati alias Mohd. Karim v. State of West Bengal [(1973)3 SCC 250, 256] this Court observed thus:-

"It must be remembered that the personal liberty of an individual has been given an honoured place in the fundamental rights which our Constitution has jealously protected against illegal and arbitrary deprivation, and t