SUKAT ALI BISWAS Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this application for a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus the detenu is challenging an order of detention passed by Sri B. Muhhopadhyay, Secretary, Home Department Government of West Bengal (Special Section) in exercise of power conferred by Sub -section (1) of S. 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, (hereinafter referred to as the taid Act). The said order was passed with a view to preventing the detenu from engaging in transporting smuggled goods. The relevant portion of the grounds of detention served on the detenu reads as follows: You are being detained in pursuance of a detention order made in exercise of power conferred by Sub -section (1) of S. 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), on the ground that you have been engaging in transporting smuggled goods as evidenced by the particulars given below : On 11 -8 -1974 at 02.00 hrs, the B. S. F -Patrol Party of Madhugari B.O.P. in course of patrol duty at border Boushmari, Mursidabad found unclaimed properties namely 15 (fifteen) pieces of Silver lumps weighing 17.700 kgs. collectively valued at Rs. 18,816.00 (Rupees Eighteen thousand eight hundred sixteen) only and seized the same in the reasonable belief that the silver lumps as aforesaid had been unlawfully imported and handed over the same to the Oftjcer -in -chargc, Customs, Jalangi, P. P. for proceeding under Customs Act, 1962. Following the above seizure, you were apprehended on 30 -9 -74 by B.S.F. staff of Madhubona B.O.P. before whom you admitted that you along with your associates, three of whom were Bangladesh Nationals smugggled. the silver lumps as aforesaid from Bangladesh and seized by the B.S.F. Patrol Party. Accordingly, the B.S.F. Officer made over you to the Customs Officer Jalangi P. P. in connection with the aforesaid seizure case. On 1 -10 -1974 you stated before the customs officer in presence of independent witnesses that you along with your associates went to Bangladesh on 8 -8 -1974 and smuggled the Silver lumps as aforesaid on 11 -8 -1974 through border village at Boushmuri of District Murshidabad (India). You failed to produce any evidence documentary or otherwise to show legal importation and bona fide acquisition of the silver lumps as aforesaid. From the foregoing it is evident that you have been engaging in transporting smuggled goods and unless prevented you arc likely to act in similar manner in future.

(2.) MR . Bagchi, learned Advocate appearing in support of the Rule submitted that there is non -application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. It was submitted that though the order was made with a view to preventing the detenu from engaging in transporting smuggled goods and though the recital and concluding portion of the' grounds also refer to engagement in transporting of smuggled goods, the allegations in the body of the grounds at the most amounts to smuggling of goods and not engaging in transporting of smuggled goods. He also submitted that the satisfaction rearding engagement in transporting of smuggled goods is not based on any material as disclosed in the grounds. Mr. Chakrabarty appearing on behalf of the respondents contended that in smuggling the goods there is some kind of transportation involved. He submitted that smuggling of goods means crossing the border and after the border is crossed if a single step is taken that amounts to transport. According to him in this particular case the detenu was engaged in bringing the goods from Bangladesh and as he crossed the border it became smuggled goods and as soon as one step was taken it amounted to transporting of the said smuggled goods. In this connection he also relied on the statement of the detenu made before the Customs Officer which according to him would make it clear that the detenu was engaged in transporting smuggled goods.

(3.) THIS can be looked at from another aspect also. So far as the satisfaction regarding S. 3(i)(iii) is concerned, on which the order is based, the grounds do not disclose that there was any material before the detaining authority to enable it to reach such conclusion and the satisfaction of the detaining authority to that effect is perverse and it is not a reasonable satisfaction. It is true that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority cannot be tested by objective standards. But subjective satisfaction does not mean a sham satisfaction. Subjective satisfaction does not mean that it can be irrational to the point of unreality. The Court can examine as to whether an order can be impugned as colourable or callous exercise of power based on illusory or extraneous circumstances. When the materials disclosed in the grounds are such that no reasonable person could have come to such conclusion or reached such satisfaction, it must be held to be perverse. The satisfaction must be based on materials which are of rational value. Subjective satisfaction is not completely immune from judicial reviewability. The court can certainly interfere in a case where the ground discloses that there is no material at all before the detaining authority to reach such satisfaction or where no reasonable man could have reached the satisfaction from the material disclosed. Reference may be made in this connection to Sadhu Roy v. State of West Bengal AIR 1975 SC 919 : 1975 Cri LJ 785); Khudiram Das v. State of West Bengal : [1975]2SCR832 ; Tulsi Rabidas v. State of West Bengal : 1975CriLJ598 and Srilal Shaw v. State of West Bengal : 1975CriLJ423 .