AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The detention order in this case is challenged on the ground that it is based on one incident of smuggling. In order to appreciate the contentions raised on both sides, it is necessary to state here the relevant facts. On a secret information received by the officers of the Customs Collectorate, Alibag Division, on the 30th June 1985, they searched the house and compound situated opposite the Jetty of Gharapuri and recovered 58 bundles containing foreign goods. The house was occupied by one Smt. Padmibai Padmakar Thakur and on interrogation, she told the officers that in the night of 28th/29th June 1985 at about 3 a.m., four to five fishermen from Mora knocked at her door and asked her permission to keep their goods in her house for two days When she refused the permission, they threatened her and forcibly kept these goods in her house. She identified one of those persons and that was the present detenu. Admittedly the goods are of foreign origin and have been smuggled into this country.
On his interrogation u/s 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 the Petitioner stated, among other things, that he was working since last about four months as a member of the crew on the vessel ''Shri Gajanan'' which was admittedly used for carrying the goods from high seas to the shore. The Petitioner also stated that the vessel was owned by one Mahadev Dharma Koli of Mora and on the night in question the other crew members, namely, the owner Mahadev, Ramachandra Koli, Narayan Budhya Koli, Govind Koli, Krishna Koli and Rajan had forcibly taken him to the vessel from his residence and at about 2 a.m. in the night they had proceeded by a small vessel to the vessel in question viz, Gajanan to the place where the vessel Gajanan was loaded with goods. The Petitioner also pointed out the vessel in question. In the investigation it also transpired that although the Petitioner had given the name of Mahadev Koli as the owner of vessel Gajanan, the actual owner of the vessel was one Smt. Vithabai Eknath Koli and that she had stated before the officers in her statement u/s 108 that she had kept her vessel at Mora Jetty. It was in a non-operational condition and nobody was looking after it at the gate.
It is on the basis of these circumstances that the detaining authority has come to the conclusion that not only the Petitioner was involved in the smuggling of the goods but also in transporting the smuggled goods and that there was a reasonable prognosis that he would indulge in future also in the similar activities.
The reliance placed by Shri Ghaisas, appearing for the Petitioner on a decision of the Supreme Court reported in Debu Mahato Vs. The State of West Bengal, and of the Bombay and Delhi High Courts (sic) reported in AIR 1986 Criminal Law Journal at pages 1157 and 1183 Pratap Jevanlal v. State of Maharashtra) and (Vijendar Kumar v. Union of India) respectively, according to us is not well founded. Even without the later authorities, the observations made in AIR 1974 S.C, are clear on the point. There is no prohibition against passing an order of detention even on a solitary ground. In that case itself it has been observed by the Supreme Court that the offence of wagon-breaking which was committed by the detenu in that case and which was made the basis of the detention order was not reported to be rampant at that time and the solitary instance of wagon-breaking that the detenu had alleged to have indulged in could not therefore be available for a reasonable prognosis that he would indulge in future also in similar activities. In other words if it was a case of a rampant offence, the detention of the Petitioner in that case would have been upheld. It is not suggested that the facts in that case are similar to those in the present case. In fact, the activities of smuggling are not only rampant but on the increase with every day that passes. Hence it had become necessary for the detaining authority to take some appropriate steps in order to put an end to such illegal activities.
What is further necessary to note in the present case is that the detenu had not only accompanied the other crew members for fetching the goods and transporting them from high seas to the shore, but he was also one of the persons who went to Smt. Padmibai Thakur to keep the goods in her hut Whether she was forced to keep the goods or not, certainly he was one of those who had gone to her hut to keep the goods or hand over the goods to her. Even if, therefore, the Court is credulous enough to accept the theory that the detenu was forced to accompany the other criminals, the subsequent conduct of the detenu in going to the hut of Smt Padmibai Thakur for depositing the goods there, is difficult to forget. Thus, if on the basis of these twin pieces of his conduct the detaining authority had come to the conclusion that there was a reasonable basis for presuming that he would indulge in similar activities in future, we do not see how the order passed can be assailed on the ground that the detenu was caught only in one incident of smuggling of goods.
There was no other ground urged. The petitioner therefore fails and the Rule is discharged.