The Detaining Authority must apply its mind to the facts and consider all material documents before passing an order of detention.

JUDGMENT - D.M. REGE, J.:---This is a petition for Habeas Corpus by the wife of a detenu who has been detained under the provisions of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (hereinafter called COFEPOSA Act).

2. The detenu is carrying on business as a professional photographs and sells photographic equipments to his customers. On 7th November, 1981 he was served with an order of detention dated 4th November, 1981 by the Government of Maharashtra alleging that with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods, abetting the smuggling of goods and engaged in concealing and keeping smuggled goods, it was necessary to detain the detenu under section 3(1) of COFEPOSA Act, 1974 (52 of 1974). On the same day i.e. on 7th November, 1981 he was served with another order directing him to be detained for one week in Bombay Central Prison and thereafter at Nasik Road Central Prison, Nasik. On the same day he was also served with the grounds of detention.

3. The detenu's representation to the State Government dated 18-12-1982 was rejected on 2-1-1982 and that to the Central Government was rejected on 24-12-1981. Hence this petition.

4. As is apparent from the grounds of detention (Annexure 'D' to the petition), the order of detention was based on an incident, when during the search of the detenu's flat by the Custom Officers on 7-9-1981 various types of luxury goods such as cameras, projectors, photographic colour firms, wrist watches, etc. of foreign origin and silverbars weighing 12.004 kgs. of the total market value of Rs. 249631 were seized. The Detaining Authority on the basis of the statement made by the detenu on 17th and 18th September, 1981 and of the detenu's brother one Hemant dated 7-9-1981 alleged that the said goods were smuggled goods and the detenu was illegally acquiring, storing and disposing of goods of contraband nature. The detenu in his statement recorded on 17th and 18th September, 1981 had, inter alia, stated that he was doing the business of purchasing foreign goods and selling them at a profit and that some of the goods were purchased by him from passengers and some were brought by the members of his family. The detenu's brother had in his statement inter alia recorded on 7-9-1981 stated that the detenu was dealing in sale and purchase of foreign goods.

5. In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the detention order on several grounds. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, has however, rested his attack only on the following grounds, viz. :---

(a) grounds (ii) to (iv) concerning out of the seized items, item of goods mentioned in Annexure 'H' to the petition, of the market value of Rs. 1,32,141/- as admitted not covered by Chapter IV-A and section 123 of the Customs Act;

(b) ground (v) concerning a projector and (c) newly added grounds (xiii) covering a camera of Rs. 1500/- MV and a taper recorder of Rs. 6000/- MV, respectively.

The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner was that the goods concerned under the said grounds which were of the approximate market value of Rs. 1,45,500/-, were either not smuggled goods or that there was to material before the Detaining Authority to hold that they were smuggled and, therefore, there being a total non-application of mind by the Detaining Authority in passing the order of detention on the basis that the detenu had smuggled goods or abetted in smuggling of goods of the value of Rs. 2,49, 637, the order was vitiated.

6. It is now well settled that non-application of mind of the Detaining Authority to facts in respect of which it was required to be satisfied would vitiate the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority in passing the order (See Khudiram Das v. State of West Bengal and others)1, A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 550.

7. Supreme Court in its decision in the case of (Dwarkaprasad v. Sahu State of Bihar and others)2, A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 134 has held :---

"Even if one of the grounds or reasons which led to the subj

Click Here to Read the rest of this document