IMPORTANT POINT
In an order of preventive detention it is no necessary mention in the ground the reaction of the detaining authority in relation to every piece of evidence separately.

Judgment

SHARMA, J. :- The order of detention of the respondent No. 2, Mahendra V. Shah, passed under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, was challenged by his nephew, respondent No. 1, before the Gujarat High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution. By the impugned judgment the detention order was quashed. The State of Gujarat has impugned the High Courts decision by the present Special Appeal Application.

2. Special leave is granted.

3. The detention order was passed on the 20th of October, 1984, but could not be served on the detenu earlier than 4-7-1986 as he was absconding. The grounds of detention served on him as mentioned in Annexure-B state that information was received by the Customs staff of Ahmadabad on 26-9-1984 that a notorious smuggler, Juwansingh Jadeja, had shifted his smuggling activities to the coast of Chorwad in Saurashtra, and was working on behalf of two citizens of Pakistan. Information about Jadejas main associates was also received. The authorities were informed that the gang was likely to land about 180 packages of contraband goods within a couple of days and vigilance activities were therefore stepped up. The officers further learnt that the modus operandi of the smugglers gang would be to remove the goods to trucks and to cover them with cargo of vegetables and grains and then to drive away. An Ambassador car bearing registered No. MRH 6595 which was earlier in the service of the respondent detenu a resident of Bombay was spotted in the late night of 28-9-1984 and they suspected it to be on the road in that connection. They proceeded in the same direction and found a truck loaded with bags of vegetables. The truck was intercepted but the driver ran away. The Ambassador car was also passing by, but on being signalled to stop, it took a sharp turn and got away. The officers unsuccessfully chased for some time. The suspicion of the officers was thus confirmed and they searched the truck and discovered the contraband goods. Two other vehicles, a Jeep and another car also arrived and were stopped by the officers and several persons travelling therein including Jadeja were taken to the Excise Office for interrogation. Incriminating documents were recovered, inter alia, indicating that several other trucks were also involved. All available Customs and police officers thereafter became active and two other trucks were seized. They also found the Ambassador car MRH 6595 abandoned. The goods found in the first truck were all of foreign origin and were valued at over Rs. 68 lakhs. Similar contraband goods were discovered in the other trucks also. Later a fourth truck was also intercepted. The arrested persons gave vital clues about the clandestine business of smuggling and named respondent Mahendra V. Shah as being directly involved in the business. It was inter alia stated that Mahendra V. Shah had gone to the coast where the goods were received. The grounds have mentioned the various activities of the detenu including the fact that he was travelling in the Ambassador car MRH 6595. We do not consider it necessary to mention here all the details of his activities.

4. As stated earlier, although the order of detention was made in October, 1984, it could not be served on the detenu before July, 1986 as he was absconding. On his arrest the writ application was filed by his nephew the respondent No. 1. The other persons involved in the affair were also detained. These co-conspirators made an application for bail on 2-10-1984 and on the next day, that is on 3-10-1984, they filed an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Junagadh retracting some of their earlier statements.

5. One of the points urged on behalf of the detenu was that the retraction by the aforesaid other persons (co-conspirators) was not placed before the detaining authority and was, therefore, not considered by him. The High Court held that this point by itself vitiated the detention order.