Holding

The detaining authority need not invariably consider the possibility of prosecution, but must apply its mind to the necessity of preventive detention; failure to do so may invalidate the order, however, in this case the order was valid as the authority had applied its mind.

Summary

K. M. Chokshi was detained under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 and filed a writ of habeas corpus. The Gujarat High Court rejected his petition and certified a substantial question: whether a detaining authority must consider the possibility of a criminal prosecution before ordering preventive detention. The Supreme Court held that the mere possibility of prosecution is not an absolute bar to preventive detention, but the authority must apply its mind to the necessity of detention; failure to consider prosecution may lead to an inference of non‑application of mind, though it does not per se invalidate the order. In the present case the grounds of detention contained a detailed factual statement showing that the authority had indeed considered the relevant factors, and the appellant made no specific allegation of non‑application of mind. Consequently, the Court found no infirmity in the detention order and dismissed the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether the detaining authority is required to consider the possibility of a criminal prosecution before issuing a preventive detention order under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974.
Whether the failure to consider such a possibility automatically renders the detention order void.
Whether the detention order in the present case is infirm on the ground of non‑application of mind by the authority.

Legislation cited

Subjects

preventive detentionpossibility of prosecutionapplication of mindhabeas corpusforeign exchangesmugglingconstitutional lawArticle 14Article 21

Judgment

54

A KANCHANLAL MANEKLAL CHOKSHI
v.
THE STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS.
July 23, 1979
8 [R. S. SARKARIA, P. N. SHINGHAL AND 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ.]
Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Sn1uggling Activities •
Act, 1974-Failure of detalning authon"ty to consider possibility of prosecu--
tion bez'ng launched-If could lead t.o the conclusion that it never applied its
mind-Order of detention if void on that ground.

In Ashok Murlidhar v. State of Gujarat a Division Bench of the High
c Court thought that this Court in Hardhan Saha & Anr. v. The State of West
Bengal & Ors., [1975] 1 SCR 778 laid down that where a person \Vas sought
to be detained preventively the possibility of a prosecution being launched
was an irrelevant consideration which need never be present to the mind of
the detaining authority. Purporting to follow this decision another Division
Bench of the High Court rejected the habeas corpus petition of the appellant
who was in preventive detention under the provisions of Conservation of
D Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, The
Division Bench certified that a substantial question whether it is necessary for
the detaining authority to consider whether a person should be prosecuted
before an order of detention is made against him needed to be decided by
this Court.

In appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellant that
E it was axiomatic that the detaining authority must invariably consider the
pcssibility of launching a prosecution before making an order of detention,
in the absence of which the order of detention must be held to be bad.

Dismissing the appeal,

iHELD : 1. In Hardhan Saha's case this Court did not say that the possi-
F bility of a prosecution being launched was an irrelevant consideration which
need never be present to the mind of the detaining authority. All that wasi
laid down in that <"ase was that the mere G.ircumstance th&t a detenu was liable
to be prosecuted was not by itself a bar to the making of an order of pre-
ventive detention. It does not follow therefrom that failure to consider the
possibility of a prosecution being launched cannot ever lead to the conclusion
that the detaining authority never applied its mind and the order of detention
G was, therefore, bad. [57 F-G]
2. The principles emerging from a review of the ca9es decided by thi$
.. j

Court are that the ordinary criminal process is not to be circumvented or
short-circuited by ready resort to preventive detention, but that the possibility
of launching a criminal prosecution is not an absolute bar to an order of
preventive detention. Nor is it correct to say that if such possibility is not
present to the mind of the detaining authority the order of detention is neces~
H sarily bad. However, the failure of the detaining authority to copsider the
possibility of launching a criminal prosecution· may, in the circumstances of
a case, lead to the conclusion that the detaining authority had not applied
K. M. CHOKSHI v. GUJARAT (Chinnappa Reddy, !.) 55

its mind to the vital question whether it was necessary to make an order of A
preventive detention. . Where an ~xpress allegation is ri:iade that the order of
detention w;is. issued in a mechanical fashion without keeping present to its
mind the question whether it was necess~uy to make such an order when an
ordinary criminal prosecution could well serve the purpose, the detaining
authority must .satisfy the Court that that question too was borne in mind·
before the order of detention was made. If the detaining authority fails to
satisfy the court that the detaining authority so borne the question in mind
the court would be justified in drawing the_ inference that there was no appli~
cation of the mind of the detaining authority to the vital question whether it
was necessary to preventively detain the detenu. [60 A-D]
In the instant case the grounds of detention served on the appellant oon-
taineci a very elaborate statement of facts quite clearly pointing to an appli-
cation of the mind by the detaining authority. The appellant did not complain c; -
in his petition that the detaining authority had not applied its rpind and in
particular had not considered the question of the possibility of a prosecution
nor were there any facts appearing from the record which could lead to the
conclusion that the detaining authority did not apply its mind to .relevant
considerations. The order of detention. is not infirm in any manner. [60 E-F]
Bhuthnath Mate v. The Stale of West Bengal, [1974] 3 SCR 315; Sri/a/
., Shaw v. State of West Bengal & Ors., AIR 1975 SC 393; Abdul Gaffer v. D
State of West Bengal, .AIR 1975 SC 1496; Dula/ Roy v. The District Magis-
trate, Burdwan & Ors., [1975] 3 SCR 186; Salim v, State of West Bengar,
(1975] 3 SCR 394; explained.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.
193 of 1979.
From the Judgment and Order dated 23-1-1979 of the Gujarat E
Hight Court in Special Criminal Application No. 8/79.
P. H. Parekh and M. Mudgol foe the Appellant.
N. M. Phadke, S. P. Nayyar and M. N. Shroff for the Respon-
dent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by F
CHINNAPPA REDDY, J.-Kanchanlal Maneklar Chokshi who is in
preventive detention under the provisions of the Conservation of
Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974
and whose petition for the issue of a writ of Habeas Corpus was
I rejected by the High Court of Gujarat is the appellant in this appeal. G
~
The High Court, while rejecting the petition, granted a certificate un-
der Article 133(1) of the Constitution that the case involved a subs-
tantial question of law of general importance which needed to be de-
cided by the Supreme Court. The substantial question of law so
certiJied was 'whether it is necessary for the detaining authority to
consider whether a person should be prosecuted before an order of H
detention is made against him'. The Division Bench of the Gujarat
High Court in rejecting the particular contention of the appellant
5-475 SCI/79
56 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] l S.C.R.

A purported to follow an earlier dec:sion of another Division Bench of
the same Court in Ashok Murlidhar v. State o! Gujarat.(') In that
case Divan C. 1., and Majumdar, J., though inclined to the view that
the possibility of a criminal prosecution being launched should be
present to the mind of the detaining authority, felt constrained to
hold otherwise because of what, they thought had been decided by
B this Court in Hardhan Saha & Anr. v. State of West Bengal
& Ors.('). In our view, lhis Court did not say in Hardlwn Saha v.
State of West Bengal that the possibility of a prosecution being laun-
ched was an irrelevant cons:'deration which need never be present to
the mind of the detaining authority. On the other hand, we do not
also think that it is axiomatic, as sought to be contended by the learn-
c ed Counsel for the appellant, that the detaining authority must in-
variably consider the possibility of launching a prosecution before mak-
ing an order of detention and that, if not, the order of detention must
necessarily be held to be bad.

In Hardhan Saha v. State of West Bengal, the vires of the provi-
D
sions of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act was in question.
One of tl1e contentions was that Section 3 of the "Act offended Article
14 of the Constitution as it permitted 'the same offence to be a ground
for detention in different and discriminatory ways'. It was submitted
that while A might be prosecuted but not detained preventively, B
E might not be prosecuted but only detained preventively and C might
be both prosecuted and detained preventively. Dealing with the con-
tention, a Bench of five judges of this Court explained the basic dis-
tinction between preventive detention and detention following upon
conviction and observed :
"The power of preventive detention is qualitatively diffe-
(I
rent from punitive detention. The power of preventive
detention is precautionary power exercised in reasonable
anticipation. It may or may not relate to an offence. It ,..,_'
.
is not a parallel proceeding. It does not overlap with pro- •
secution even if it relies on certain facts for which prose-
G cution may be launched or may have been launched. An
order of preventive detention may be made before or dur-
ing prosecution. Au order of preventive detention may be

-
made with or without prosecution aud in anticipation or after
discharge or even acquittal. The pendency of prosecution
is no bar to an order of preventive detention. An order of •
H preventive detention is also not a bar to prosecution".
(I) l'!pecirJ Criminrl Application No. 230 of 1978.
(2) (1975] I SCR 778.
K. M. CHOKSHI v. GUJARAT (Chinnappa Reddy, !.) 57

The Court then referred to various earlier decisions and deduced the A
following principles :

"First merely because a dctcnu is liable to be tried in
a criminal court for the commission of a criminal offence
l or to be proceeded against for preventing him from com-
mitting offences dealt with in Chapter VIII of the Code of B
Criminal Procedure would not by itself debar the Govern-
ment from taking action for his detention under the Act.
Second, the fact that the police arrests a person and later
on enlarges him on bail and initiates steps to prosecute him
under the Code of Criminal Procedure and even lodges a
first information report may be no bar against the District c
Magistrate issuing an order under the p.reventive detention.
Third, where the concerned person is actually in jail cus-
tody at the time when an order of detention is passed against
him and is not likely to be released for a fair length of
time, it may be possible to contend that there could be no
D
satisfaction on the part of the detaining authority as to the
likelihood of such a person indulging in activities which
would jeopardise the security of the State or the public
order. Fourth, the mere circumstance that a detention order
is passed during the pendency of the prosecution will not

-- violate the order. Fifth, the order of detention is a precau-
tionary measure. It is based on a reasonable prognosis of
the future behaviour of a person based on his past conduct
E

in the light of the surrounding circumstances".

Clearly, the Court did not lay down that the possibility of a pro-
secution being launched was an irrelevant consideration, not to be
0
F
borne in mind by the detaining authority. All that was laid down was
that the mere circumstance that a detenu was liable t'o be prosecuted
was not by itself a baor to the making of an order of preventive deten-
tion. It does not follow therefrom that failure to consider the poJsi-
bility of a prosecution being launched cannot ever lead to the con-
I clusion that the detaining authority never applied its mind and the G
• order of detention wa·s, therefore, bad.

.
· ~- In Bhutnath Mate v. State of West Bengal(') Krishna Iyer
and Sarkaria JJ., declared the detention illegal for denial of opportu-
nity to inakc effective representation. On the question whether the
failure of crimin'ill prosecution was a bar to preventive detention the H
answer was a definite 'no'. The learned judges however expressed
(I) [1974] 3 SCR 315.
58 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980) 1 S.C.R.

A apprehension against the danger to the democratic way of life inherent
in 'the potential executive tendency to shy at Conrts for prosecution
of ordinary offences and to rely generously on the easier strategy of
subjective sati;;faction'. The question presently under consideration,
namely, whether the failure of the detaining authority to keep in mind
the pos>ibility of a prosecution would necessarily vitiate the order of
B
detent10n was not considered by the learned judges.
In Sri/al Shaw v. State of West Bengal & Ors.('), the prosecution
was dropped and thereafter an order of preventive detention was
passed. The substance of the allegation against the detenu was that
he was in unlawful possession of scrap metal belonging t'o the Rail-
c way. The Court came to the conclusion that on the material which
was available to the detaining authority, it was impossible to arrive
at the conclusion that the possession of the petitioner was unlawful.
The Court found that the reason given by the District Magistrate for
dropping the prosecution was unacceptable. It was observed that the
prosecution was in all probability dropped as the petitioner might
D have been able to establish that his possession of the goods was not
unlawful. The case struck the Court as a typical case in which for
no apparent reason a person who could easily be prosecuted under
the punitive law was being preventively detained. It is seen that the
decision turned on the peculiar facts of the case and throws no light
E on the question presently raised before us.
In Abdul Gaffer v. State of West Bengal(') the order of deten-
tion was passed on the basis of a few instances of theft of Railway
property for which the detenu could well and easily have been pro-
secuted. The contention before the Court was that the order of
detention was passed by the detaining authority mechanically without
F applying its mind to the question whether the facts disc16sed · the
tendency of the petitioner to· act prejudicially in the manner mention-
ed in the detention order. The bald and sweeping allegation was
made in the counter filed on behalf of the State that material witnesses
were afraid of giving evidence in the Court against the detenu. The
G material witnesses were members of the Railway Protection Force. In
J
that situation Sarkaria J., observed that the version given in the
counter was incredible and could not be swallowed. The learned
'
Judge then observed "tM conclusion therefore is inescapable that the
petitioner has been preventively detained without application ?f mind
as to whether the prosecution against him was foredoomed to failure
ll on the ground of witnesses being afraid fo depose against the detenu
(!) AIR 1975 SC 393.
(2) AIR 1975 SC 1496.
K. M. CHOKSHI v. GUJARAT (Chinnappa Reddy, J.) 59

mCourt. The impugned order has been made in a casual and cava- A
' lier manner". It is seen that there was an express allegatio0; that re-
course was had to preventive detention despite the fact that crimi-
nal prosecutions could well have been successfully launched, based as
the case was on the evidence of members of the Railway Protection
Foret. The rC'ason given by the State for taking recourse to preven-
tive detention was found to be fantastic. The decision thus stands on B
j' the special facts of the case.
Jn Dula/ Roy v. The District Magistrate, Burdwan & Ors.,(') the
Court had to consider a situation where a month after a person was
nrrested in connection with a criminal case he was discharged but was
taken into custody on the same day pursuant to an order of detention. c
Krishna Iyer and Sarkaria, JJ., while observing that as an abstract
legal proposition an order of preventive detention could be validly
jl'assed against a< person in jail custody on the same facts on which
he was being prosecuted for a substantive offence in a Court, pointed
out that such an order of detention was readily vulnerable to the
charge that the detaining authority was taking recourse to preventive D
detention in order to circumvent the penal law and the process of the
Court. The le-arned Judges were satisfied that the discharge of the
detenu in a criminal case was not due to any shortcoming in the evi-
dence or difficulty in its production in Court. The ()rder of d'tention
was, therefore, quashed ~n the ground of non applic-ation of mind by
the detaining authority. E

In Salim v. State of West Bengal,(') Chandrachud J., speaking
for the Court observed that the fact that the detenu could have been
prosecuted for the acts attributed to him did not affect the validity
of the order of preventive detention. The further question whether
it was incumbent on the detaining authority to consider the question F
of possibility of prosecution was not considered by the Court.
r ·--<.,.

' In As/wk Murlidhar v. State of Guiarat, (supra) Divan C.J., and
Majumdar, J., appeared to think that the Bench of five Judges of this
I Court which decided Hardhan Saha & Anr. v. State of West
• Bengal & Ors., (supra) had taken a view different from that expressed G
in Bhuthnath Mate v. State of West Bengal, Abdul Gaffer v. State of
West Bengal, Sri/al Shaw v. State of West Bengal & Ors., Dula! Roy
v. The District Magistrate, Burdwan & Ors., (supra) We do not think
that there is any such conflict as thought by the Division Bench of the
Gujarat High Court. The principles emerging from a review of the H
(I) [1975] 3 SCR 186.
(2) [l97i] 3 SCR 394.
60 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] l s.c.R.

A above cases may be summarised in the followiug way:
The ordinary criminal process is not to be circumver.ted or short-
circuited by ready resort to preventive detentio">. But, the possibility
of launching a crimina·l prosecution is not an absolute bar to an order
of preventive detention. Nor is it correct to say that if such possi- •
B bility is not present to the mind of the detaining authority the order of
detention is necessarily bad. However, the failure of the detaining •
authority to consider the possibility of launching a criminal prosecu-
tion may, in the circumstances of a case. lead to the conclusion that
the detaining authority had not •applied its mind to the vital question
whether it was neoessary to make an order of preventive detention.
c Where an express allegation is made that the order of detention wa1>
issued in a mechanical fashion without keeping present to its mind the
question whether it was necessary to make such an order when an
ordinary criminal prosecution could well serve the purpose, the detain-
ing authority must satisfy the Court that that question too was borne
in mind before the order of detention was made. If the detaining
D authority fails to satisfy the Court that the detaining authority so bore
the question in mind the Court would be justified in drawing the in-
ference that there was no application of the mind by the detaining
authority to the vital question whether it was necessary to preventively
detain the dctenu.
E The facts of the present case are that the grounds of detention: serv-
ed on the appellant contain a very elaborate statement of facts quite
clearly pointing to an application of the mind by the detaining authority.
The appellant did not complain in the Writ Petition that the detaining
authority had not applied its mind and in particular had not considered
the question of the possibility of a prosecution. Nor are there any facts
F appearing from the record which can lead us to infer that the detaining
authority did not apply its mind to relevant considerations. We do
not, therefore, think that the order of detention is in any manner
infirm. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

P.B.R. Appeal dismissed.
.,
•