K SATYANARAYANA SUBUDHI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has been detained by virtue of an order passed by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India with the aid of S. 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 as amended (hereinafter, "the Act") with a view to prevent the petitioner from being engaged in transporting smuggled goods and dealing in smuggled goods, otherwise than by engaging in concealing and keeping smuggled goods. The order was passed on 28/06/1990 and is founded on the following two grounds :

(2.) The validity of the detention order has been assailed only on the score that the second ground being not available inasmuch as the same was the result of an extorted confession, which aspect had not been made known to the detaining authority, the order passed on the first ground alone is not tenable in law.

(3.) We are reminded by Mr. Rath, of the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Ayya alias Ayuh v. State of 11. P., AIR 1989 SC 364 : 1989 Cri LJ 991, that personal liberty is, by every reckoning, the greatest of human freedoms and the laws of preventive detention are strictly construed and a meticulous compliance with the procedural safeguards, however, technical, is strictly insisted upon by the courts. Let us, therefore, see whether in the case at hand there was any infraction of the safeguards made available to the detenu.