CHOWDARAPU RAGHUNANDAN versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] 2 S.C.R. 486 · Decided: 15-03-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.B. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
CHOWDARAPU RAGHUNANDAN 
v. 
STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS. 
MARCH 15, 2002 
B 
[M.B. SHAH AND DORAISWAMY RAJU, JJ.] 
Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling 
}--
Activities Act, I974-Section 3(J)(i)-Detention-Dutiable goods recovered 
t.. 
c from detenu-Ownership of baggages, containing the goods doubtful-
~ 
Investigation inconclusive-No other a/legation-Denial of bail in criminal 
proceedings for the offence-Detention challenged-Plea that single incident 
not sufficient to warrant detention order-Held, detention can be ordered 
even for single incident if from the nature of the incident it can be inferred 
that person is likely to repeat such acts so as to warrant his detention-In the 
D instant case, inference of detenu 's involvement in smuggling activities could 
not be drawn-Hence, detention not justified-Constitution of India, I950-
Article 2 I-Customs Act, I 962-Sections I I I (d)(i)(i) and (m), I 32 and I 35-
k.. 
Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. 
-< 
E 
Customs authority seized baggages, containing dutiable goods, of 
petitioner-detenu, while he was returning from Singapore. It was alleged that 
the detenu made statement before the customs authority admitting that he 
was carrying the dutiable goods and that he had earlier visited Singapore twice 
-:-
as a tourist 
).._ 
F 
In criminal proceedings for the alleged offences, detenu had made bail 
applications narrating the facts that the statements before the customs 
~ 
authority were made under coercion. The bail applications were rejected. 
Detenu made representation to customs department stating that the 
baggages seized, did not belong to him as there were no tags on them so as to 
G connect him with the same, and he specifically stated that the same belonged 
to someone else bearing his ticket numbers and address, against whom no 
l. 
action could be taken, and investigation in this regard had not concluded. 
Thereafter detention order was passed against the petitioner-detenu 
under Section (3)(l)(i) of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention 
H 
486 
A 
•,.
; 
CHOWDARAPU RAGHUNANDAN v. STA TE OF TAMIL NADU 
487 
of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA). Petitioner challenged the A 
detention order by filing writ petition in this Court. 
Petitioner contended that detention order was passed without 
application of mind as the detaining authority did not consider the fact that 
it was his case throughout that he had not brought the goods; that relevant 
records were not placed before the detaining authority; that even if presumed B 
that seized goods were of the detenu, the solitary act could not be a ground 
for detaining him under COFEPOSA; and that there was no necessity of 
detaining him, since criminal proceedings with regard to the alleged offence 
were pending and his bail applications in that case were rejected. 
Respondents contended that order of detaining authority was not 
arbitrary as the same was passed on !ts subjective satisfactions; and that in 
view of detenu's admission that he had previously visited Singapore twice as 
a tourist, it could be inferred that the petitioner might have indulged and was 
likely to indulge in activities of smuggling. 
Allowing the appea~ the Court 
HELD: 
Per Shah, J. 
I. From the facts-that there was no other allegation as to detenu's 
involvement in any anti-social activities; that he had alleged that he made 
statement before customs authority under coercion; and that there were no 
tags on the baggages so as to connect him with the baggages and the crime -
it is totally unreasonable to arrive at a prognosis that the petitioner is likely 
to indulge in any prejudicial activities of smuggling. From the fact that a 
person had visited Singapore twice earlier as a 'tourist', inference cannot be 
drawn that he was involved in smuggling activities or is likely to indulge in 
such activities in future. (494-E; 495-A) 
c 
D 
E 
F 
2.1. In appropriate case, an inference could legitimately be drawn even G 
from a single incident of smuggling that the person may indulge in smuggling 
activity but for that purpose antecedents and nature of the activities carried 
out by a person are required to be taken into consideration for reaching 
justifiable satisfaction that the person was engaged in smuggling and that with 
a view to prevent, it was necessary to detain him; It is also settled law that an 
order of preventive detention is founded on a reasonable prognosis 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.