c II STATE OF GUJARAT v. CHAMANLAL MANJIBHAI SONI January 8, 1981 [S. MURTAZA FAZAL Au AND A. VARADARAJAN, JJ.] Conservation of Foreign Exchange & Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, .~ection SA, interpretation of.
}i{aintaining the order of the High Court quashing the detention, the Court HELD : (I) The detention under section 3 of the COFEPOSA is only for the purpose of preventing smuggling and all the grounds, \\'hether there are one or more, \\'Ould be relatable only to various activities of smuggling and no other sepa-rat'e ground which could deal with
matters other than smuggling could be conceived of because the Act of smuggling covers several activities each forming a separate ground of detention and the Act deals with no other act except smuggling.
Indeed, if the interpretation, namely, that Section 5A contemplates that there should be only one' ground which relates to the violation of section 3 of the Act and if that ground is irrelevant while the other grounds which relate· to the same subject rnatter are clear and specific the detention order will not stand vitiated, is accepted,
then section 5A will become otiose. [501 H, 502 A-q (2) Whenever allegations of smuggling are made against a person who is sought to be deta-ined for preventing further smuggling, there is bound
to be one act or several acts with the con1mon object of smuggling gocxls wltlch is sought to be prevented by the Act. Jt would, therefore, not be correct to My that the object of the Act constitutes the ground for deten· tion. If this is so, in no case there could be any other ground for detention, except the one which relates to smuggling. This is neither the object of the Act nor ca!l such an object be spelt out from the language in which sec~
tion 5A is couched. What section 5 (A) of the Act provides is that where there are a number of grounds of detention covering various activities of the detenu spreading over a period or periods, ea-ch activity is a separate ground by itself and if one of the grounds is irrelevant, vague or unspecific, then
that will not vitiate the ordep of detention on the other grounds. [502 H, 503 A) CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 91 of f 19m Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated
22-12-1978 of the Gujarat High Court in Criminal Application No. 245/78. M. N. Phadke and M. N. Shroff for the Appellant. J. G. Shah, Vineet Kumar and Ashok Kaul for the Respondent. GUJARAT V. C. M. SONI (Fa.zal Ali, J.)
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by FAZAL ALI, J.-This appeal by special leave is directed against . tbe judgment of the Gujarat High Court dated December 22, 1978 in a Criminal Habeas Corpug Writ for quashing the order of detention PMl!ed against the detenu.
'I1Je detenu was arrested on October 20, 1978 and grounds of detention were sefved on him that very day. The High Court allowed the Writ Petition mainly on the ground that, as one of the grounds, namely, ground No. 7 was irrelevant, the entire order of detention is vitiated. In corning to this finding, the High
Court, has put, in our opinion, a wrong interpretation on Sec. 5 (A) Of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Section SA reads thus:
,,.: . "SA. Ground9 of detention severable.-Where a person has been detained in pursuance ol' an order of detention under sub-section (1) of section 3 which has been made o'n two or more grounds, such order of detention shall be deem- ed to have been made separately on each of snch grounds
and accordingly- ( a) such order shall no't be deemed to be invalid or in- operative merely because one or some of the grounds is or are- (i) vague, (ii) non-existent, (iii) not relevant,
(iv) not connected or not proximately connected with S'Uch person, or (v) invalid for any other reason whatsoever, and it is not therefore possible to bold that the Government or officer making such order would
have been satisfied as provided in sub-section (1) of section 3 with reference to the remaining ground or grounds and made the order of detention, (b) the Government or officer making the order of
detention shall be deemed to have made the order of detention under the said snb-section ( 1) after being satisfied as provided in that sub-section with reference to the remaining ground or grounds."
The High Court seems to think that Sec. 5 (A) contemplates that there should be only one ground which relates to the violation of l~-57 SCI/81 c c II [198]\ 2 $.C..R. Sec. 3 of the Act and if that gronnd is irrelevant and the other grounds which relate to some other subject matter are clear and specific, the detention will not stand vitiated. In our opinion, the argument of the High Court with due respect amounts to begging the question because the detention under Sec. 3 of the Act is only for the purpose of pre- venting smuggling and all the grounds whether there are one or more, would be relatable only to v~rious activities of smuggling and we cannot conceive of any other separate ground which could deal with matters other than smuggling because the act of
smuggling covers several activities each forming a separate ground of detention and the Act deals with no other act except smuggling. Indeed, if the interpre- tation of the High Court in respect of Sec. S(A) is
accepted. then Sec. 5/\. will become otio~e. While construing section 5 (A) the High Court observed thus :- "But in the present case the subjective satisfaction i; based on one ground, that is, for preventing the present
petitioner from smuggling goods and in support of that ground various statements have been relied upon and the totality of consideration of all these statements has resulted in the sub- jective satisfaction of the detaining authority when it passed the impugned order of detention. Now for these totality of circumstances considered by the detaining authority, if one irrelevant or unsustainable element has entered in the process of subjective satisfaction, the process of arriving at subjective satisfaction being comprehensive, the said element would
disturb the entire process of subjective satisfaction and conse- quently, even if one statement which could not have been re- lied upon appeared before the mind's eye of the detaining
authori!j, it could easily be seen that its subjective satisfac- tion would be vitiated and its final decison would rest upon a part of the material which is irrelevant." The process of reasoning adopted by the High Court is absolutely ~ unintelligible to us.
It is manifest that whenever the allegations of smuggling are made against a person who is sought to be detained by way of preventing further smuggling, there is bound to be one act or several acts witl1 the common object of smuggling goods which is sought to be prevented by the Act. It would, therefore, not be correct to say that the object of the Act constitutes the ground for detention. If this is so, in no case there could be any other ground for detention, except the one which relates to smuggling. In our opinion, this is neither the object of the Act nor can such an object be spelt ou! from the langu- age in which Sec. SA is couched. What the Act provides is that where there are a number of grounds of detenfion covering various r
f i I I I l GUJARAT v. c. M. SONI (Fazal Ali, !.) activities of the detenu spreading over a period or periods, each acti- vity is a separate ground by itself and if one of the grounds is irrele- vant, vague or unspecific, then that will not vitiate
the order of detention. The reason fo'r enacting Sec. 5 (A) was the fact that seve- ral High Courts took the view that where several grounds are men- tioned in an order of detention and one of them is found to be either vague or irrelevant then the entire order is vitiated because it cannot be predicted to what extent the subjective satisfaction of the autho~ rity could have been influenced by the vague or irrelevant ground. It was to displace the basis of these decisions that the Parliament en- acted Sec. 5 (A) in order to make it clear that even if one of the ~grounds is irrelevan.t but the other grounds are clear and specific that by itself would not vitiate the order of detention. Mr. G. A. Shah appearing for the detenu frankly conceded that he is not in a position to support the view taken by the Gujarat High Court on the interpre- tation of Sec. 5 (A). He also stated that he does not want to challenge the vires of Sec. 5 (A) of the Act. Mr. Phadke has frankly slated that he only wants the law to be settled in the peculiar circumst~nces of this case and the order of the High Court quashing the detention need not be disturbed. We, therefore, hold that t)le view taken by the High Court on interpretation of Sec. 5(A) is legally erroneous and is here- by overruled. With these observations the appeal is disposed of with-. out disturbing the order. of the High Court quashing the order of detention.
S.R. Appeal dismissed. c