A MOHAMMED Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is elementary and obvious that abundant foreign exchange was the crying need as a result of highly adverse position of the balance of payments on the eve of second world war and our country required the foreign exchange as much for development of the planned industrial base. The foreign exchange needed conservation meaning prohibition of imports of certain items and close regulation of some items. The controls in the context exhibited over-all fall outs creating a class of smugglers as well as foreign exchange manipulators. Profit was the sole motive and worldly success became the sole criterion to show what is right and what is wrong in individual conduct. The Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, the Customs Act, 1962 which were passed on the anvil of the Parliament proved abortive and in spite thereof smuggling and violations continued spreading with a spiral character.

(2.) The Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as "The said Act") was enacted for preventive detention specifically with the object to provide for preventive detention for the said purpose because violations of foreign exchange and smuggling activities showed an increasingly deleterious effect on the national economy and thereby a serious adverse effect on the security of the State. Regard is to such persons with reference to such activities or violations organised and carried on in areas which are highly vulnerable to smuggling, smuggling activities of a considerable magnitude, and the Act makes provisions for preventive detention.

(3.) The "smuggling" activity gets the same meaning as is available in Sec. 2(39) of the Customs Act, 1962 (see Sec. 2(e) of the said Act) and it would be an act or omission which would render goods liable to confiscation under Sec. 111 or 113 of the Customs Act. Reference to Sections 111 and 113 of the Customs Act, 1962 would show that an improper import or its attempt would make the goods liable to confiscation. Suffice it to state an improper import or its attempt would brand the concerned activity as the "smuggling activity" with reference to the said Act.