AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
SI. No.,"Description of
 Gold Articles",Weight in Grams,Purity,"Value Apprised
(In Rs.)
1,"232 (Two hundred
Thirty Two) Gold
rings",2001,955,"59,51,114/-
,Total,2001,955,"59,51,114/-
S.No.,"Date of Departure from
India",Cash carried on Departure,"Date of Arrival in
India","Qty of Gold and its
form
1,20.11.18,"Packet of Unquantified
currency given by Tarun to
handover to Avtar at
Bangkok","2 2 . 1 1 . 1 8 via
Lucknow","Wire Ring 200gms
approx
2,24.11.18,"Packet of Unquantified
currency given by Tarun to
handover to Avtar at
Bangkok","2 5 . 1 1 . 1 8 via
Lucknow","Wire ring 200gms
approx
3,27.11.18,"Packet of Unquantified
currency given by Tarun to
handover to Avtar at
Bangkok","2 8 . 1 1 . 1 8 via
Lucknow","Wire ring 200gms
approx
4,04.12.18,"P ersonal trips, for
choreography, Rs.2,00,000",06.12.18 via Mumbai,Event choreography
5,08.12.18,Un-quantified currency,"0 8 . 1 2 . 1 8 via
Lucknow",250 gms approx
6,10.12.18,Event purpose,12.12.18 via Mumbai,Event choreography
7,19.12.18,Un-quantified currency,20.12.18 via Mumbai,"Shirt Button250 gms
approx
8,24.12.18,Un-quantified currency,26.12.18 Delhi,"Shirt Button 250gms
approx.
9,27.12.18,Event purpose,28.12.18 Delhi,Event choreography
10,09.01.19,Un-quantified currency,"0 9 . 0 1 . 1 9 via
Lucknow",500 gms approx.
11,12.01.19,Event purpose,15.01.19 Delhi,Event purpose
12,24.01.19,Un-quantified currency,"2 6 . 0 1 . 1 9 via
Varanasi",450 gms approx
13,28.01.19,Un-quantified currency,"3 0 . 0 1 . 1 9 via
Varanasi",400 gms approx
14,04.02.19,Un-quantified currency,"Un-quantified
currency",450 gms approx
15,11.02.19,Un-quantified currency,"1 2 . 0 2 . 1 9 via
Varanasi",300 gms approx
16,24.02.19,Un-quantified currency,"2 6 . 0 2 . 1 9 via
Varanasi",500 gms approx
17,27.02.19,Un-quantified currency,"0 2 . 0 3 . 1 9 via
Varanasi",250gms approx
18,05.03.19,Un-quantified currency,"0 7 . 0 5 . 1 9 via
Varanasi",450 gms approx
19,12.03.19,Un-quantified currency,"1 4 . 0 3 . 1 9 via
Varanasi",400gms approx
20,17.03.19,Event purpose,"2 0 . 0 3 . 1 9 via
Lucknow",Event purpose
21,21.03.19,Un-quantified currency,"2 3 . 0 3 . 1 9 via
Lucknow",450 gms approx
22,29.03.19,Un-quantified currency,"0 3 . 0 4 . 1 9 via
Lucknow",350 gms approx
23,05.04.19,Un-quantified currency,"0 7 . 0 4 . 1 9 via
Lucknow",400 gms approx
24,09.04.19,Un-quantified currency,"1 2 . 0 4 . 1 9 via
Lucknow",500 gms approx
25,18.04.19,Un-quantified currency,"1 9 . 0 4 . 1 9 via
Lucknow",500 gms approx
26,22.04.19,Un-quantified currency,"2 4 . 0 4 . 1 9 via
Lucknow",400 gms approx
27,27.04.19,Un-quantified currency,"2 9 . 0 4 . 1 9 via
Varanasi",350 gms approx
28,30.04.19,Un-quantified currency,03.05.19,Event purpose
29,08.05.19,Un-quantified currency,09.05.19,300 gms approx
the Detenu that the same would be equivalent to gold brought from Thailand. On being further asked, Detenue had disclosed of bringing the",,,,
abovementioned quantity of gold in India on the direction of Shri Tarun Jain whose mobile number saved as ""T007"" in the phone of Detenue. It was",,,,
further disclosed by him that the mobile no. of Ms. Neha Sharma was 8929607849, who had guided the Detenue in all the above visits. Predicated on",,,,
the Detenue’s deposition and categorical admission in relation to smuggling of foreign currency and at least 8350 gms Gold, he was arrested under",,,,
section 104 of the said Act on 01.07.2019 vide Arrest Memo dated 01.07.2019. On being produced before learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,",,,,
Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, Detenue was forwarded to judicial custody till 15.07.2019 vide Order dated 01.07.2019 by learned CMM. The",,,,
judicial custody was further extended up to 29.07.2019.,,,,
x. That on 19.07.2019, the impugned Detention Order was passed and served on the Detenu along with the grounds of detention, admittedly on the",,,,
21.07.2019, whilst he was already in judicial custody and lodged at Tihar Jail, Delhi.",,,,
xi. The Detenu filed his representation dated 24.08.2019, under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India read with Section 3(3) of the COFEPOSA,",,,,
addressed to the Detaining Authority, against the impugned detention order through the jail authorities.",,,,
xii. The afore-stated detention order was confirmed by the Advisory Board vide its order dated 09.10.2019, which affirmed and ordained the detention",,,,
of the Detenu for period of one year from the date of his detention.,,,,
Mr. Ramkant Gaur, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner assails the Detention Order, firstly, on the ground that, the Sponsoring",,,,
Authority did not place the vital documents including the Detenue’s ‘Letter Of Extrication’ dated the 03.07.2019 before the Detaining,,,,
Authority, thereby vitiating the subjective satisfaction of the latter and rendering the Detention Order invalid and illegal.",,,,
Mr. Ramakant Gaur, Advocate would then urge that the Detention Order is also vitiated, since the Detaining Authority considered his inculpatory",,,,
statements dated 30.06.2019 and 1.07.2019, which were alleged to be in Detenue’s handwriting, but was prevented by the Sponsoring Authority",,,,
from due consideration of the ‘Letter of Extrication’ dated 03.07.2019, which was the only document asserted by him to be in his handwriting",,,,
and the consideration of which in juxtaposition with his inculpatory statements dated 30.06.2019 and 01.07.2019, would have clearly established that",,,,
the Detenue had not authored the latter.,,,,
Mr. Ramakant Gaur, Advocate would also urge that the Detention Order is unsustainable in the light of the non-placement of the Sponsoring",,,,
Authority of other relevant documents, namely, the alleged summons, issued to him, as well as, the non-production of the ‘No-Recovery",,,,
Panchnama’, in relation to the raid conducted at his residence on the 30.06.2019, before the Detaining Authority. It is, therefore, urged on behalf",,,,
of the Detenue that, vital and exonerating material was withheld by the Sponsoring Authority from the scrutiny of the Detaining Authority, thereby",,,,
vitiating the Detention Order.,,,,
In order to buttress his submissions, Mr. Ramkant Gaur, Advocate has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Asha",,,,
Devi, w/o Gopal Gherman Mehta (Detenu) vs. K. Shivraj, Addl. Chief Secretary to the Government of Gujarat) reported as 1979 (1) SCC 222.",,,,
On the other hand, Mr. Ajay Digpaul, the Central Government Standing Counsel, appearing on behalf of the Union of India invited our attention to",,,,
the circumstance that the Detaining Authority could not consider the ‘Letter of Extrication’, dated 03.07.2019, since the same was supplied by",,,,
the Detenue to the Sponsoring Authority, through proper channels, only after the issuance of the subject Detention Order and therefore, this plea has",,,,
been taken by the petitioner only with a motive to mislead this Hon’ble Court. Insofar as, the non-consideration of the ‘Summons’ and",,,,
‘No Recovery Panchnama’ is concerned, it was pointed out that the same were not documents relied upon by the Sponsoring Authority, since",,,,
the same were not relevant or germane for determining the gravity of the offences alleged to have been committed by the Detenue, to the satisfaction",,,,
of the Detaining Authority. It was also urged on behalf of the official respondent that the assertion made by the Detenue that his voluntary statements,",,,,
recorded under Section 108 of the said Act, were not in his handwriting, as the same purportedly did not match with his handwriting in the ‘Letter of",,,,
Extrication’ dated the 03.07.2019, is false to the knowledge of the Detenue, since the same was also duly considered by the Advisory Board",,,,
during its hearing and outrightly rejected.,,,,
Lastly, Mr. Ajay Digpaul, learned CGSC would invite our attention to the grounds of detention and in particular paragraphs 1(xii), (xiii), (xiv), (xvi),",,,,
(xviii), 2,5,6 and 7, which are extracted hereinbelow:",,,,
“ (1) xii. In view of the depositions of Shri Raju Singh Sachdeva about involvement of you i.e. Shri Greeshm Shanna, surveillance was kept on you",,,,
and you were apprehended on 30.06.2019. Statement of you i.e. Shri Greeshm Shanna were recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 on",,,,
30.06.2019 wherein you, inter-alia, stated that you were born and brought up in Delhi; that you did your schooling from Ravindra Public School,",,,,
Pitampura and completed your studies upto 12th standard in Commerce stream with Maths in 2007; that after passing your school, you started doing",,,,
choreography for wedding events and also engaged himself in the business of Event Management as a freelancer. On being asked whether you knew,,,,
Shri Monish and Shri Vikas Kumar, you admitted that you had met them at Rohini Metro Station through Shri Tarun, Jain, who happened to be your",,,,
neighbour at Shakti Apartment, Sec-9, Rohini, New Delhi-110085, in October 2018.",,,,
a) On being asked about your relationship with Shri Tarun Jain, you stated that he (Tarun Jain) happened to be your neighbour and they were",,,,
acquainted with each as friends since your childhood days but you were not aware about his profession after they grew up. Since your business of,,,,
event management was not going well, you were facing acute financial crisis and he (Tarun Jain) was doing well in life and was well off. Therefore,",,,,
you asked him to find a job for you where you could earn around Rupees 50 to 60 thousand per month so as to live a comfortable life. In 2014-15 he,,,,
(Tarun Jain) offered you to join his business of trading of Gold by bringing it from Bangkok and sell it in Delhi on profit. You agreed to his proposal,,,,
and made two trips to Bangkok for transporting Gold on his advice for which he (Tarun Jain) promised you to pay Rs.7,000/- per trip in addition to all",,,,
expenses of air travel and stay at Bangkok. You admitted that in these 2 trips, you had brought Gold in the form of buttons of ready made shirts",,,,
wherein you used to conceal Gold rings in the buttons of shirt. These two trips were made from Bangkok to Delhi via Calcutta and then from Calcutta,,,,
to Delhi by domestic flights for which all expenses were paid by Shri Tarun Jain. You i.e. Greeshm Sharma admitted that you used to handover the,,,,
Gold brought clandestinely to Shri Tarun Jain but you were not aware as to how he was disposing it off. You further deposed that after these 2 trips,",,,,
you found this job non-remunerative and stopped doing that from 2014-15 till November 2018.,,,,
b) On being asked, you i.e. Shri Greeshm Sharma further deposed that once again you came in contact with Shri Tarun Jain in 2018 when he",,,,
persuaded you to restart bringing the Gold using the same modus operandi; as in June, 18 you visited Bangkok for your own choreography business.",,,,
Shri Tarun Jain told you that when you were going to Bangkok for your own business, why did not you restart bringing Gold for him (Tarun Jain) on",,,,
return and he (Tarun Jain) promised you to take care of all your air travel and lodging expenses for Bangkok trips. You i.e. Shri Greeshm Sharma,,,,
categorically admitted that since November, 2018 till May, 2019, you had made total 29 trips to Bangkok, out of which approximately 18 to 20 trips",,,,
were made exclusively on Tarun Jain’s behest and in between other trips were made in connection with your own choreography business. You,,,,
provided the following details of his Bangkok trips and the purpose of his visits:-,,,,
S.No.,"Date of Departure from
India",Cash carried on Departure,"Date of Arrival in
India","Qty of Gold and its
form
1,20.11.18,"Packet of Unquantified
currency given by Tarun to
handover to Avtar at
Bangkok","2 2 . 1 1 . 1 8 via
Lucknow","Wire Ring 200gms
approx
2,24.11.18,"Packet of Unquantified
currency given by Tarun to
handover to Avtar at
Bangkok","2 5 . 1 1 . 1 8 via
Lucknow","Wire ring 200gms
approx
3,27.11.18,"Packet of Unquantified
currency given by Tarun to
handover to Avtar at
Bangkok","2 8 . 1 1 . 1 8 via
Lucknow","Wire ring 200gms
approx
4,04.12.18,"P ersonal trips, for
choreography, Rs.2,00,000",06.12.18 via Mumbai,Event choreography
5,08.12.18,Un-quantified currency,"0 8 . 1 2 . 1 8 via
Lucknow",250 gms approx
6,10.12.18,Event purpose,12.12.18 via Mumbai,Event choreography
7,19.12.18,Un-quantified currency,20.12.18 via Mumbai,"Shirt Button250 gms
approx
8,24.12.18,Un-quantified currency,26.12.18 Delhi,"Shirt Button 250gms
approx.
9,27.12.18,Event purpose,28.12.18 Delhi,Event choreography
10,09.01.19,Un-quantified currency,"0 9 . 0 1 . 1 9 via
Lucknow",500 gms approx.
11,12.01.19,Event purpose,15.01.19 Delhi,Event purpose
12,24.01.19,Un-quantified currency,"2 6 . 0 1 . 1 9 via
Varanasi",450 gms approx
13,28.01.19,Un-quantified currency,"3 0 . 0 1 . 1 9 via
Varanasi",400 gms approx
14,04.02.19,Un-quantified currency,"Un-quantified
currency",450 gms approx
15,11.02.19,Un-quantified currency,"1 2 . 0 2 . 1 9 via
Varanasi",300 gms approx
16,24.02.19,Un-quantified currency,"2 6 . 0 2 . 1 9 via
Varanasi",500 gms approx
17,27.02.19,Un-quantified currency,"0 2 . 0 3 . 1 9 via
Varanasi",250gms approx
18,05.03.19,Un-quantified currency,"0 7 . 0 5 . 1 9 via
Varanasi",450 gms approx
19,12.03.19,Un-quantified currency,"1 4 . 0 3 . 1 9 via
Varanasi",400gms approx
20,17.03.19,Event purpose,"2 0 . 0 3 . 1 9 via
Lucknow",Event purpose
21,21.03.19,Un-quantified currency,"2 3 . 0 3 . 1 9 via
Lucknow",450 gms approx
22,29.03.19,Un-quantified currency,"0 3 . 0 4 . 1 9 via
Lucknow",350 gms approx
23,05.04.19,Un-quantified currency,"0 7 . 0 4 . 1 9 via
Lucknow",400 gms approx
24,09.04.19,Un-quantified currency,"1 2 . 0 4 . 1 9 via
Lucknow",500 gms approx
25,18.04.19,Un-quantified currency,"1 9 . 0 4 . 1 9 via
Lucknow",500 gms approx
26,22.04.19,Un-quantified currency,"2 4 . 0 4 . 1 9 via
Lucknow",400 gms approx
27,27.04.19,Un-quantified currency,"2 9 . 0 4 . 1 9 via
Varanasi",350 gms approx
28,30.04.19,Un-quantified currency,03.05.19,Event purpose
29,08.05.19,Un-quantified currency,09.05.19,300 gms approx
other members of the syndicate, viz., Shri Monish Kumar and Shri Vikas Kumar with a well thought out plan. Evidences collected, so far, clearly",,,,
indicate that the smuggling network is being run and operated by common mastermind Shri Tarun Jain, Ms. Neha Sharma and Shri Greeshm Sharma",,,,
i.e. you.,,,,
In view of the facts, circumstances, findings, corroborative evidences and your role in the whole operation, I am satisfied that you i.e. Shri Greeshm",,,,
Sharma are an important part of a well organised smuggling syndicate involved in smuggling of foreign origin gold and foreign currency. You along,,,,
with other associates are in the habit of regularly smuggling goods into India from abroad without declaring the same before the Customs Authorities,,,,
and paying applicable duty which amounts to ""smuggling"" in terms of Section 2 of the Customs Act, 1962. The underlying common threat is your",,,,
propensity to smuggle goods for making illicit profit and putting the national economy into danger which needs to be curbed and yon need to be,,,,
prevented from indulging in such activities further.,,,,
xxxxxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx,,,,
In view of the facts and circumstances explained above, I have no hesitation in concluding that you i.e. Shri Greeshm Shanna played a vital role in",,,,
smuggling of foreign origin gold and foreign currency along with other accomplices. You i.e. Shri Greeshm Sharma have also designed plan in an,,,,
organised and repeated manner in the act of smuggling. Investigations done by Commissionerate of Customs, IGI Airport, New Delhi clearly establish",,,,
your continued propensity and inclination to indulge in acts of smuggling in a planned manner to the detriment of the economic security of the country,,,,
and that unless prevented you i.e. Shri Greeshm Shanna will continue to do so. Further considering the nature and gravity of offence in an organized,,,,
manner in which you i.e. Shri Greeshm Sharma have engaged yourself in such prejudicial activities and your role therein, all of which reflect your high",,,,
potentiality and propensity to indulge in such prejudicial activities in future, I am satisfied that there is a need to prevent you i.e. Shri Greeshm Sharma",,,,
from smuggling goods. Hence, you i.e. Shri Greeshm Sharma ought to be detained under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of",,,,
Smuggling Activities (COFEPOSA) Act,1974 with a view to preventing you from smuggling goods, abetting the smuggling of goods and engaging in",,,,
transporting or concealing or keeping smuggled goods in terms of Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act, 1974.",,,,
I am aware that prosecution under Section 135may be launched against you i.e. Shri Greeshm Sharma and adjudication proceedings are also likely,,,,
to be initiated soon, which are however, punitive in nature and independent of the preventive detention provided under the COFEPOSA Act, 1974.",,,,
However, considering your i.e. Shri Greeshm Sharma’s high propensity to indulge in the prejudicial activities, I am satisfied that in the meantime",,,,
you should be immobilised by detention under the COFEPOSA Act, 1974 with a view to prevent you from smuggling goods, abetting the smuggling of",,,,
goods and engaging in transporting or concealing or keeping smuggled goods in future.,,,,
As regards retraction of you i.e. Shri Greeshm Sharma vide your bail application dated 15.07.2019,1 have noted that your house was searched on",,,,
30.06.2019 where you i.e. Shri Greeshm Sharma were found and as per the Summons issued to you, you visited the IGI airport and your statements",,,,
were recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 on 30.06.2019 and 1.07.2019 in total 12 pages of your own handwriting. So your allegation",,,,
of signing of pre narrated statements and blank papers is nothing but an afterthought. Further, all retraction towards your voluntary statements",,,,
recorded on 30.06.2019 and 1.07.2019 under section 108 of Customs Act, 1962 are after a lapse of nearly 15 days which itself justifies that your",,,,
retraction is just an afterthought to mislead the investigation. I have also taken note of documentary evidences, corroborative statement and available",,,,
records relating to your involvement in the syndicate of smuggling of gold and foreign currency and hence, I am satisfied that, your retraction of",,,,
statements is devoid of merits.â€,,,,
In view of the foregoing, it would be submitted by Mr. Ajay Digpaul, learned CGSC that the Detaining Authority has passed a well-reasoned and",,,,
legally sustainable Detention Order, after considering all the relevant facts of the case and after minutely examining the material available against the",,,,
Detenu. Mr. Ajay Digpaul, learned CGSC places reliance on the recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India (UOI) and Ors.",,,,
v. Dimple Happy Dhakad reported as AIR 2019 SC 3428, which was affirmed in Union of India (UOI) v. Ankit Ashok Jalan reported as 265 (2019)",,,,
DLT 53, to urge that the Court must be conscious that the satisfaction of the Detaining Authority is ""subjective"" in nature and the court cannot",,,,
substitute its opinion for the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority and interfere with the order of detention.,,,,
Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the material on record and in particular the impugned Detention,,,,
Order, we observe that the subjective satisfaction requisite on the part of the Detaining Authority, the formation of which is a condition precedent to",,,,
the passing of the Detention Order, gets vitiated only if material or vital documents, which could have a bearing on the issue and would influence the",,,,
mind of the Detaining Authority, one way or the other, are not placed by the Sponsoring Authority before the Detaining Authority.",,,,
In the present case, it is however, observed that the ‘Letter of Extrication’ dated 03.07.2019, which was strongly relied upon, on behalf of",,,,
the petitioner, was received by the Sponsoring Authority only on the 20.07.2019, viz a day after the impugned Detention Order had been passed and",,,,
thus could not have been placed before the Detaining Authority for consideration. Even otherwise, the connected assertion made on behalf of the",,,,
Detenue that a perusal of the said ‘Letter of Extrication’ could establish that the incriminatory statements made under Section 108 of the said,,,,
Act by him were not in his handwriting, are not tenable and has already been considered and rejected by the Advisory Board, comprising three Judges",,,,
of this Hon’ble Court. Consequently, the said ‘Letter of Extrication’ cannot be said to be a vital or relevant document, the non-consideration",,,,
of which by the Detaining Authority, would result in vitiating the Detention Order. Similar is the position qua the ‘Summons’ and the ‘Non-",,,,
Recovery Panchnama’, referred to vigorously on behalf of the Detenue. Insofar as, the ‘Summons’ dated 30.06.2019 is concerned, the",,,,
same was duly received by the Detenue, who put his signatures on the face of it, as token of receipt of the same and voluntarily went to the IGI",,,,
Airport, in compliance thereto. Therefore, the assertion of the Detenue that, the said ‘Summons’ were not relied upon by the Sponsoring",,,,
Authority or placed before the Detaining Authority does not vitiate the ‘subjective satisfaction’ recorded by the Detaining Authority, since the",,,,
same was not relevant for the formation of the ‘subjective satisfaction’ of the Detaining Authority. Further, the Detenue’s assertion that he",,,,
was not even supplied with a copy of the said ‘Summons’ is factually incorrect and does not further his case. Coming to the submission qua the,,,,
‘Non-Recovery Panchnama’, the Sponsoring Authority did not rely upon that document, since the search proceedings did not result in the",,,,
recovery of any incriminating documents, other than some personal documents of the Detenue, such as PAN Card, Aadhaar Card and Driving",,,,
License. Therefore, the Panchnama, in our view, cannot be said to be material, the non-placement of which would render the Detention Order illegal.",,,,
In this view of the matter, the decision in Asha Devi (supra) pressed into service on behalf of the petitioner, does not come to the aid of the Detenue.",,,,
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India was pleased to delineate precisely qua the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority in Dimple,,,,
Happy Dhakad (supra), which was affirmed by the Hon’ble 3-Judges in that Bench in Union of India (UOI) v. Ankit Ashok Jalan (supra), as",,,,
follows:-,,,,
“ 42. Considering the scope of preventive detention and observing that it is aimed to protect the safety and interest of the society, in State of",,,,
Maharashtra and Ors. v. Bhaurao Punjabrao Gawande (2008) 3 SCC 613, it was held as under:",,,,
Liberty of an individual has to be subordinated, within reasonable bounds, to the good of the people. The framers of the Constitution were",,,,
conscious of the practical need of preventive detention with a view to striking a just and delicate balance between need and necessity to preserve,,,,
individual liberty and personal freedom on the one hand and security and safety of the country and interest of the society on the other hand. Security,,,,
of State, maintenance of public order and services essential to the community, prevention of smuggling and black marketing activities, etc. demand",,,,
effective safeguards in the larger interests of sustenance of a peaceful democratic way of life.,,,,
In considering and interpreting preventive detention laws, courts ought to show greatest concern and solitude in upholding and safeguarding the",,,,
fundamental right of liberty of the citizen, however, without forgetting the historical background in which the necessity-an unhappy necessity-was felt",,,,
by the makers of the Constitution in incorporating provisions of preventive detention in the Constitution itself. While no doubt it is the duty of the court,,,,
to safeguard against any encroachment on the life and liberty of individuals, at the same time the authorities who have the responsibility to discharge",,,,
the functions vested in them under the law of the country should not be impeded or interfered with without justification.,,,,
The court must be conscious that the satisfaction of the Detaining Authority is ""subjective"" in nature and the court cannot substitute its opinion for",,,,
the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority and interfere with the order of detention. It does not mean that the subjective satisfaction of the,,,,
Detaining Authority is immune from judicial reviewability. By various decisions, the Supreme Court has carved out areas within which the validity of",,,,
subjective satisfaction can be tested.â€,,,,
On a conspectus of the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dimple Happy Dhakad (supra) and Ankit Ashok Jalan (supra), it is",,,,
axiomatic that, though procedural safeguards are required to be rigorously adhered to and that although the courts must lean in favour of personal",,,,
liberty of the citizens and remain conscious and zealous in upholding the personal liberties of citizens but in appropriate cases the liberty of an individual,,,,
has to be subordinated within reasonable bounds to the good of the people. It is observed that an order of detention is clearly and unequivocally a,,,,
preventive measure devised to afford protection to the society and particularly where the preventive detention is aimed to protect the security and,,,,
safety of the nation, the Courts must strike a balance between the liberty of an individual and the needs of the society.",,,,
In the present case, it is observed that huge volumes of gold had been smuggled into the country, illegally and unabatedly for the last five years and",,,,
that about 8350 grams of gold has been brought into India during the period from November 2018 to May 2019 by the Detenue camouflaging the same,,,,
as accessories of garments and buckle rings of bags. It is further observed that the Detaining Authority was justifiably satisfied, founded on the",,,,
relevant material placed before it by the Sponsoring Authority, that the Detenue demonstrably has the propensity to indulge in the same acts of",,,,
smuggling, if not prevented by way of the Detention Order from so doing. It is trite to state that the order of preventive detention is a preventive",,,,
measure and that predicated on the admissible voluntary statements of the Detenue, which clearly bring out the role of the Detenue in the smuggling",,,,
of Gold, as well as, other materials placed before the Detaining Authority, the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority, recorded in the",,,,
Detention Order qua the continued propensity and inclination of the Detenue to continue to indulge into acts of smuggling in a planned manner, to the",,,,
detriment of the economic security of the country, cannot be faulted and does not warrant interference of this Court in exercising its extraordinary",,,,
jurisdiction.,,,,
In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered view that the present writ petition is devoid of merit and the same is accordingly",,,,
dismissed.,,,,
A copy of this Judgment be provided to the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties electronically and be also uploaded on the website,,,,
of this Court forthwith.,,,,