Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Similarly, while highlighting in detail the true import of Section 12 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 which psrtains to "temporary release" of the detenu, the Supreme Court in the case of Pushpadevi M. Jatia v. M.L. Wadhvan, Additional Secretary, Government of India, has in para 13 of its judgment observed as under!

13. In addition to the reasons given therein, we may add the following by way of supplementary material. Though the element of detention is a common factor in cases of preventive detention as well as punitive detention, there is a vast difference in their objective. Punitive detention follows a sentence awarded to an offender for proven charges in a trial by way of punishment and has in it the elements of retribution, deference, correctional factor and institutional treatment in varying degrees. On the contrary, preventive detention is an extra-ordinary measure resorted to by the State on account of compulsive factors pertaining to maintenance of public order, safety of public life and the welfare of the economy of the country. The need for this extra-ordinary measure, i.e., detention without trial was realised by the founding fathers of the Constitution as on inevitable necessity for safe guarding the interests of the public and the country and hence a specific provision has been made in Clause (3) of Article 22 providing for preventive detention being imposed in appropriate cases notwithstanding the fundamental right of freedom and liberty guaranteed to the citizens by the Constitution. The entire scheme of preventive detention is based on the bounden duty of the State to safeguard the interests of the country and the welfare of the people from the canker of Anti-national activities by Anti-socials elements affecting the maintenance of public order or the economic welfare of the country. Placing the interests of the nation above the individual liberty of the Anti-social and dangerous elements who constitute a grave menace to society by their unlawful acts, the preventive detention laws have been made for effectively keeping out of circulation the detenus during a prescribed period by means of preventive detention. The objective underlying preventive detention cannot be achieved or fulfilled if the detenu is granted parole and brought out of detention. Even if any conditions are imposed with a view to restrict the movements of the detenu while on parole, the observance of those conditions can never lead to an equation of the period of parole with the period of detention. One need not look far off to see the reason because the observance of the conditions of parole, wherever imposed, such as reporting daily or periodically before a designated authority, residing in a canicular town or city, travelling within prescribed limits alone and not going beyond etc., will not prevent the detenu from moving around acting as a free agent during the rest of the time or within the circumscribed limits of t rave I and having full scope and oppor-tunily to meet people of his choice and have dealings with them, to correspond with one and all to have easy and effective communication with whomsoever he likes through telephone, telex etc. Due to the spectacular achievement in modern communication system, a detenu, while on parole, can sit in a room in a house or hotel and have contacts with all his relations and confederates in any part of the country or even any part of the world and thereby persue his unlawful activities if so inclined. It will therefore be futile to contend that the period of parole of a detenu has all the trappings of actual detention in prison and as such both the periods should find a natural merger and they stand detained of their distinctive characteristics. Any view to the contrary would not only be opposed to realities but would defeat she very purpose of preventive detention and would also lead to making a mockery of the preventive detention laws enacted by the Centre or the States it will not be out of place to point out here that inspite of the Criminal Procedure Code providing for release of the convicted offenders on probation of good conduct, it expressly provides, when it comes to a question of giving set-off to a convicted person in the period of sentence, that only the actual pre-trial detention period should count for set-off and not the period of bail even if bail had been granted subject to stringent conditions. In contrast, in so far as preventive detentions under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, arc concerned, the Act specifically lays down that a person against whom an order of detention has been passed shall not be released on bail or bail bond or otherwise (vide Section 12(6) of the Act) and that any revocation or modification of the order of detention can be made only by the Government in exercise of its powers under Section 11. Incidentally, it may be pointed out that by reason of Sub-section (6) of Section 12 of the Act placing an embargo on the grant of bail to a detenu there was no necessity for the legislature to make a provision similar to Sub-section (4) of Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1973 (corresponding to Sub-section (3) of Section 426 of the old Code) for excluding the period of bail from the term of detention period. For these reasons, the plea for treating the period of parole as part of the detention period has to be necessarily fail.