Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

20. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the order of detention has been passed only to deprive the husband of the petitioner from contesting the adjudication proceedings relating to the earlier exports, which were at an advance stage. It was further alleged that the detention order against the detenu was passed with a mala fide objective only to out-reach the process of law as the matter was pending before the Court. The learned senior counsel further argued that the passport of the detenu was already taken into possession by the Detaining Authority as at the time of his arrest, the passport was surrendered by the detenu to the DRI voluntarily. Secondly, most of the firms which have been alleged to have over invoiced had already surrendered their importer exporter code, thereby rendering themselves incapable of indulging into any import or export activity.

21. In view of the aforesaid facts, it was clearly discernible that when the alleged firms of the detenu were incapacitated to indulge in importer exporter code, there was no occasion for any preventive measure by way of detention order to be initiated against the detenu. These facts further establish that the impugned detention order was passed by the Detaining Authority not as a preventive measure but absolutely with punitive object. In these circumstances, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is apparent that the Detaining Authority has failed to consider the vital aspect in its correct perspective and the impugned order of detention suffers from the vice of non application of mind as the satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority is sham and unreal. The impugned order based on such satisfaction is accordingly liable to be set aside.

33. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner also raised the point that since the passport of the detenu was already taken into possession by the Detaining Authority at the time of his arrest and secondly that most of the firms which have been alleged to have over invoiced had already surrendered their importer exporter code, therefore, there was no possibility of the detenu being indulge in goods in future.

34. I do not find any force in the aforesaid contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner also. Merely because the detenu surrendered his passport and the firms of the detenu had surrendered importer exporter code, it cannot be held that the Detaining Authority could not form his subjective satisfaction about the detenu being indulged in prejudicial activities of smuggling in future. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Sitthi Zuraina Begum v. Union of India, 2003 (1) RCR (Cri) 101 : (AIR 2003 SC 323) has held that seizure of passport of the detenu is no ground to quash the order of detention. The Detaining Authority was aware of this fact that the passport of the detenu was surrendered. In spite of that, while taking into consideration the documentary material available on the record, the Detaining Authority passed the order of preventive detention keeping in view the past conduct of the detenu and his prejudicial activities.