Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1990 Supreme(SC) 571

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.B. SAWANT AND S.C. AGRAWAL, JJ.
M. Mohammed Sulthan, Petitioner
Versus
The Joint Secretary to Govt. of India, Finance Deptt. and others, Respondents
Writ Petn. (Criminal) No. 245 of 1990, D/- 21-9-1990.
M. Ahamed Kutty v. Union of India & Anr. ; 1990 (2) S.C.C. 1.
Haridas Amarchand Shah v. K.L. Verma and ors. ; 1989 (1) S.C.C. 250.
Debu Mehto v. State of West Bengal; 1974 (4) S.C.C. 135.
Advocates appeared :
Mr. V.R. Karthikayaru and Mr. V. Balachandran (N.P.) Advocates, for Petitioner, Mr. R.B. Datar, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Uday U.Lall and Ms. S. Subhashini (N.P.) Advocates with him, for Respondents.

Advocates:
A.Subhashini, R.B.DATAR, U.U.Lalit, V.BALACHANDRAN, V.R.Karthikeyan

IMPORTANT POINTFor sustaining an order of preventive detention based on the past conduct of detenu consisting of one single act 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 as to warrant his detention.

Headnote:(i) Constitution of India, 1950 - Art 22 (5) - Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974-Section 3 (1) - Detention order under Challenged on the ground of failure of detaining authority to consider material documents - Application submitted by the petitioner for relaxing the conditions for his release on bail and the order passed on the said application whereby the conditions were relaxed, cannot be regarded as material documents - Failure to produce the same before the detaining authority before it passed the detention order would not vitiate the order of detention - Non-supply of the copies of the same to the petitioner would not result in denial of the right of detenu to make a representation under Art. 22 (5). (Para 6)
       (ii) Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 - Section 3 (1) - Detention under - Challenged - Solitary incident involving the recovery of seven gold bars from the person of the petitioner - Petitioner was indulging in the activity of smuggling of gold as a carrier for monetary consideration - There was a reasonable basis for the detaining authority to arrive of the requisite satisfaction - The order is valid.
       Held: An order for 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 the 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 like1y to repeat such acts as to warrant his detention.
       The petitioner was indulging in the activity of smuggling of gold as a carrier for monetary consideration. This was a deliberate act on the part of the petitioner and he had prepared himself for it by obtaining a passport in a false name and acquiring requisite skill to conceal such a large quantity of gold in his body. Taking into consideration the circumstances referred to above an inference could reasonably be drawn that unless detained the petitioner would be likely to indulge in smuggling of goods in future and, therefore, there was a reasonable basis for the detaining authority to arrive at the requisite satisfaction. (Para 7)
       (iii) Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 - Section, 3 (1)-Detention under-Challenged on account of delay in the service of the order of detention - The order of detention was passed on December, 12, 1989 - It was served on the petitioner after one month on January 12, 1990 - Facts on record showing that ever since the passing of the order of detention efforts were being made to execute the order on the petitioner but it could not be executed till November 8, 1989 - The order was executed on November 12, 1989 soon after the petitioner surrendered -It cannot be said that there was delay on the part of the authorities. (Para 8)

Judgment

S. C.AGRAWAL, J.:- In this writ petition the petitioner is seeking to challenge the validity of his detention on the basis of order dated December 12, 1989 passed under Section 3(l) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India.

2. The petitioner arrived at Madras International Airport on September 30, 1989 as a passenger from Singapore by Singapore Airlines Flight SQ 410. He was travelling under passport No. G 035015 in the name of Mohammed Ali. While he was waiting for customs clearance he was intercepted by an Air Intelligence Officer on suspicion that he might carry gold or any other contraband goods. He was questioned and he admitted having kept concealed gold bars in his body and volunteered to eject the same through his rectum. He was taken to the Gents toilet situated in the arrival hall of the Airport where he ejected two black colour adhesive tape bundles. On examination one bundle was found to contain 4 gold bars of 10 tolas each and the other bundle was found to contain 3 gold bars of 10 tolas each. All the gold bars were with foreign markings. The petitioner was not having any licence/ permit issued by the Reserve Bank of India Authorities for the import of gold and the seven gold bars were seized for action under Customs Act, 1962 read with Foreign Exchange Act, 1973.

3. The petitioner made a statement before the Customs Officer on September 30, 1989 wherein he stated that he was a labourer earning Rs. 25/- as daily wages and his monthly income was about Its. 350/- and since that income was not sufficient for maintenanec, he intended to go to Singapore with & view to earn more money and obtained a loan of Rs. 10,000/- from one Shri Pitchamuthu of Nagapattinam and with that money he purchased a ticket and left for Singapore on September 23, 1989 by Singapore Airlines Flight and stayed in the Pallivasal and in Singapore he developed friendship with one Majeed who promised that he would bear the cost of the air ticket amounting to Rs. 5,200/and would also pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/ - to the petitioner provided he carried the gold bars and other goods to India and handed over the same to his son Abumawthootha, and that the petitioner agreed for the same and accordingly on September 30,1989 Majeed gave him two black colour bundles containing gold bars and asked him to insert the same in his rectum and with the help of Majeed, the petitioner kept concealed the said two bundles in his rectum and landed at Madras Airport on September 30, 1989 with the gold bars kept secreted in his body and was intercepted by the Customs Officer and on questioning he admitted having kept concealed two bundles containing gold bars inside his body and volunteered to eject the same through his rectum and that he was taken to a Gents toilet where he ejected two bundles from his rectum. The petitioner made further statement before the Customs Officer on October 1, 1989 wherein he stated that his real name is Mohamed Sulthan and that he had wrongly mentioned his name as Mohamed Ali in his earlier statement on September 30, 1989.

4. The petitioner was arrested on October 1, 1989 and was produced before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, E.O.I. Egmore, Madras who remanded the petitioner to custody till October 12, 1989. The petitioner moved a bail application on October 1, 1989 and Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate released the petitioner on conditional bail on October 6, 1989 directing him to appear before the Assistant Collector of Customs Revenue Intelligence at 10.00 a.m.every day. On October 8,1989 the petitioner sent a retraction letter stating that he had been falsely implicated and that he was being harassed by the Customs Officer and that his statements were not voluntary. The Assistant Collector, by his letter dated October 19/ 20, 1989 informed the petitioner that the allegations made in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1990 Supreme(SC) 571

IMPORTANT POINTFor sustaining an order of preventive detention based on the past conduct of detenu consisting of one single act 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 as to warrant his detention.

Cases Referred (3)