K.S.BHALLA,J - (1.) PETITIONER Prithipal Singh has been detained vide detention order dated 8.10.1988 (Annexure P-1) passed under Section 3(1) of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities, Act 1974 (as amended) by Joint Secretary to the Government of India. Annexure P-2 provides detail of the grounds on which aforesaid detention order is said to have been based and it indicates solitary incident of 15.8.1988 when petitioner is said to have smuggled gold in primary form etc. from Dubai while travelling in Ariana Afghan Airlines Flight, detected by the Customs authorities at Rajasansi Airport, Amritsar. Eight gold pieces are said to have been recovered two from the outer backles of the handle of maroon colour suitcase, four concealed under the wheels of an Air Bag and two from the back packet of the trousers which the petitioner was then wearing. The detention order, as is clear from the language used therein, was made for twin purposes, i.e. with a view to preventing the petitioner from. (i) smuggling goods, and (ii) engaging in transporting smuggled goods. Through present writ petition, petitioner Prithipal Singh has prayed for quashing the detention order in question on various grounds claiming that the same in unwarranted and without any justification in the given facts and circumstances.
(2.) FIRST of all it is contended that the detention order is based on a solitary instance of commission of an excess on which account it would not be proper to conclude that petitioner is engaging in such activities. Ordinarily, it cannot be inferred on the basis of single act of commission or omission that a person has developed such propensities as to conclude that he is likely to repeat such acts. In the absence of any back-ground suggesting that a person is engaging in such activities or has adopted such activities by way of profession or has made it a habit, there may not be any justification to conclude that he would repeat such an act of commission or omission unless detained though preventive detention. No such background has been disclosed in detention order Annexure P-1 or the ground of detention Annexure P-2. It is not even suggested therein that petitioner has been often travelling abroad. Past acts of a person in peculiar circumstances might provide an indication of his future conduct but single solitary act in the absence of any attendant circumstances so to suggest may not be considered to be sufficient to infer that he with repeat his activity in future also. Any attending circumstance pointing towards any such inference has not been disclosed in annexure P-2. On the other hand, there is some confusion with regard to the alleged recovery to which I shall revert to subsequently. The fact that there was clever concealment by its. It may not be taken to be sufficient to so indicate. In every smuggling of goods, there is bound to be an element of concealment and more careful and clever a person si, he is bound to introduce more clever concealment in his own interest irrespective of the fact whether he is smuggler by profession or not. Also, the costlier the goods smuggled are, greater precaution is bound to be taken. In this case, it can neither be said to be a case of clever concealment pure and simple as admittedly two out of the gold pieces were just recovered from the back pocket of the trousers which the detenu is said to be wearing. Again, the two purposes for which the detention is said to have been made, are completety independent to each other. One is smuggling of goods and the other is engaging in transporting smuggled goods. The second starts only after the act of smuggling is complete and invariably, is resorted to by a different person. A person who engages in transporting smuggled goods is not reasonable for smuggling of goods and thus the two objects ordinarily do not become part of a single person. In the given incident, the person concerned cannot be said to have engaged himself in transporting smuggled goods, because no occasion for the same arose and the goods were detected and taken into possession while they were being smuggled or immediately after their smuggling. In this situation of the matter, there is no material what so-ever for making interference with regard to second purpose. In the absence of any incident with regard to transportation of smuggled goods, to my mind, there is no justification to draw an inference that petitioner would engage himself in transporting smuggled goods in future.
(3.) THE passport of the detenu was bound to or could have been seized and by seizure thereof it would have become impossible for the detenu to go abroad muchless to smuggle goods. First purpose, i.e., of smuggling goods thus could have been thwarted by the action of seizure of passport and restriction on the fundamental right of the freedom of a citizen by resorting to prevention detention need not have been made. Mention in the return that petitioner had been visiting foreign countries prior to 15.8.1988 too cannot possibly be taken to have any bearing on the case particularly when no such mention is made in annexures P-1 to P-2. In any case, no detail of any such it has either been provided in the return.;