Order of detention due to release of detenu on bail not vitiated.

Puttaswamy, J.

1. As the question that arise for determination in these cases are common and interconnected we propose to dispose them by a common order.

2. In these petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution the petitioner who is common has challenged the detention orders made by Government of Karnataka on 3.3.1986 against Sriyuths P. Selvaraj and K. Ganesh of Tamil Nadu State under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (Central Act 54 of 1974) (‘the Act’).

3. On 10.8.1985 the detenus were travelling in Bombay - Madras Mail (Train No.9) via Wadi Railway Station of Gulbarga District. When the said train reached and halted at Wadi Railway Station platform, the authorised officers of the Customs and Central Excise Department of Government of India (C&B Officers) on the reasonable belief that the detenus were carrying smuggled gold of foreign origin, entered Railway Bogie No.9337 in which they were travelling and attempted to apprehend and arrest them. But, then Selvaraj attempted to escape and run away in which he failed, as the C&B officers caught him before he reached one end of the platform of the railway station. In the meanwhile, the train had left Wadi Railway Station with Ganesh and a few C and E Officers that followed him who caught him at the next railway station called Nalwar and then brought him to Wadi. At the Wadi railway station the C and E Officers searched the bodies of the detenus and recovered from them 15 and 14 pellets of gold respectively. On the same day the C and E officers arrested the detenus for the alleged violations of the Gold Control Act of 1968, Customs Act of 1962 and 3Foreign Exchange Regulation Act of 1973 and commenced their investigation under the said Acts.

4. On 20.8.1985 the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gulbarga enlarged the detenus on bail on the terms and conditions set out in his orders of that date.

5. After the C&E Officers completed their investigation under the said Acts, the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Bangalore (Collector) on 22.11.1985 moved Government to examine the cases of the detenus for preventive detention under the Act. On an examination of all the circumstances and materials placed by the Collector, Government had made separate orders against the detenus under Sec.3 of the Act. Selvaraj has been detained with the object of preventing him from engaging in concealing, keeping and transporting smuggled goods. Ganesh has been detained with the object of preventing him from engaging in concealing, keeping and transporting smuggled goods and in dealing with smuggled goods. In pursuance of the said orders of Government, the detenus have been detained in the Central Prison, Bangalore from 10.3.1986. Hence, these petitions by the petitioner who is related to them who are related to each other.

6. The detention orders are challenged on three substantial grounds that will be noticed and dealt by us in due course. In justification of the impugned orders one Sri S.K. Ghoshal, Home Secretary to Government had filed separate counter-affidavits.

7. Sriyuths B.Kumar and Madras Bar and K.G. Raghavan of Bangalore Bar have appeared for the petitioner. Sri N. Santhosh Hegde, learned Advocate General has appeared for the respondents. Sri J. Jestmal, an Advocate of this Court had intervened and supported Sri Kumar on the contention touching on the necessity to furnish documents demanded by the detenus.

8. Sri Kumar contends that Government had detained the detenus solely or principally on presumptions or burden of proof engrafted to Sec.123 of the Customs Act of 1962 (Central Act 62 of 1962) without relevant circumstances and material in support of fits orders under the Act.

9. Sri Hegde refuting the contention of Sri Kumar, contends that Government had not acted on the presumptions or burden of proof engrafted to Sec.123 of the Customs Act but had acted on relevant circumstances and material that had nexus to the object of det