S KRISHNAVENI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Smt. S.Krishna-veni has challenged the detention of her husband T. Sreenivsa Setty, S/o J. G. Thimmaiah Setty, No. 27, Chowdeshwari Temple Street, Bangalore-53. made by the Commissioner of Police, Bangalore City, by his order dated 27th September, 1974, marked as Exhibit-A, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (2) of Section 3 read with Section 3 (1) (c) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (Central Act 26 of 1971) as amended by the Maintenance of Internal Security (Amendment) Ordinance, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The order states that the detenu has been detained with a view to prevent him "from acting in any manner prejudicial to the conservation of foreign exchange or with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods or abetting other persons to smuggle goods or dealing in smuggled goods". In accordance with the said order, the detenu has been detained in the Central Jail at Bangalore. The grounds of detention which have been furnished to the detenu, a copy of which has been produced along with the statement of objections of respondents 1 and 3 read as follows: In pursuance of Sub-section (2) of Section 3 R/W Section 3 (1) (c) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (Central Act 26 of 1971) (Amendment) Ordinance. 1974, you are hereby informed that the grounds on which the Detention Order in pursuance of which you have been detained has been made are as follows:

(2.) The principal contention of Sri M. K. Nambiar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, is that the order of detention is illegal and invalid, inasmuch as, the detaining authority, namely, the Commissioner of Police, Bangalore City; has passed the impugned order without applying his mind. The argument of Sri Nambiar is that though the statutory provision under which the impugned order has been made contemplates detention being made on several independent grounds, the order does not disclose that the detaining authority was satisfied about the grounds stated in the order of detention. It may be mentioned at this stage that though at one stage it was sought to be contended that Respondent No. 3 - the detaining authority has no competence to pass the impugned order of detention, during the course of the argument, Sri M. K. Nambiar fairly submitted that respondent No. 3. has the necessary competence to pass the impugned order. The relevant portion of Section 3 (1) (c) of the Act reads as follows:

(3.) Power to make orders detaining certain persons - (11 The Central Government or the State Government may - (c) if satisfied with respect to any person (including a foreigner) that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the conservation of foreign exchange or with a view to preventing him from( i) smuggling goods, or (ii) abetting other persons to smuggle goods, or (iii) dealing in smuggled goods. 3. If we analyse Section 3 (1) (c) of the Act. it will be clear that it contemplates four grounds for detention namely, (1) to prevent the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the conservation of foreign exchange; (2) to prevent the detenu from smuggling goods; (3) to prevent the detenu from abetting other persons to smuggle goods; and (4) to prevent dealing in smuggled goods. Having regard to the fact that the Legislature has employed the disjunctive word 'or', the grounds specified in Clause (c) of Section 3 (1) of the Act must be construed as separate grounds. The nature of the activities contemplated by the said provision also lead to the same inference. The learned Advocate-General appearing for respondents 1 and 3, however, contended that what Section 3 (1) (c) of the Act contemplates is not four separate grounds of detention, but only one ground of detention i.e., prevention of activities prejudicial to the conservation of foreign exchange. It was contended that smuggling goods, abetting other persons to smuggle goods and dealing in smuggled goods are really the sub-heads falling under the main ground, namely, 'conservation of foreign exchange'. It is necessary to bear in mind that the expression 'conservation of foreign exchange' has not been expressly defined in the Act to include within its ambit smuggling of goods, abetting other persons to smuggle goods and dealing in smuggled goods. On the contrary the scheme of the Act makes it clear that the Legislature has treated all the four items as separate and independent grounds. This will be clear if we examine Section 16-A of the Act. Sub-section (1) of the said provisions, which is relevant for our purpose, is as hereunder: Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any person (including a foreigner) in respect of whom an order of detention has been made under this Act may be detained without obtaining the opinion of the Advisory Board for a period longer than three months but not exceeding one year from the date of his detention, where the order of detention has been made against such person with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods or abetting other persons to smuggle goods and the Central Government has reason to believe that such person: (i) smuggles or is likely to smuggle goods, or (ii) abets Or is likely to abet other persons to smuggle goods, into, out of or through any specified area as defined in Clause (c) of Section 11-H of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962). This is an enabling provision entitling the authorities to detain a detenu for a period longer than 3 months, but not exceeding one year from the date of detention, if the conditions specified in Section 16-A are satisfied, without obtaining the opinion of the Advisory Board. But this right is confined only to cases of smuggling of goods or the abetment of the smuggling of goods. If Section 3 (1) (c) of the Act contemplated only one ground under the heading 'conservation of foreign exchange', the distinction contemplated by Section 16-A of the Act would not have been made. Under Section 16-A of the Act, detention cannot be made without seeking the opinion of the Advisory Board beyond a period of three months in cases of conservation of foreign exchange and in cases pertaining to dealing in smuggled goods. As these two items covered by Section 3 (1) (c) have not been included in Section 16-A of the Act, it becomes clear that the Legislature treated the four items, specified in Section 3 (1) (c) of the Act as separate and independent grounds.