- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Kusum Chandrakant Khaushe (Smt) v. L. Hmlingliana And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
Chandrakant Mahadev Khaushe, a Storekeeper in the Stores and Purchase Department of Air India, was detained under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA) by an order dated 11 January 1991. The detention aimed to prevent him from engaging in the transportation of smuggled goods.
The detention followed a seizure on 22 July 1990 at Sahar International Airport, Bombay, where customs officers discovered 48,924.80 grams of gold (worth approximately Rs 1.61 crore) concealed in special equipment boxes that had arrived on Air India Flight AI 309 from Tokyo. Statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act revealed the detenu’s alleged involvement, including prior instances in which he removed contraband for one “Vinod Michael.”
The detenu was arrested on 23 July 1990, remanded to judicial custody, and released on bail on 3 September 1990. His employer suspended him on 14 August 1990, prohibiting his entry into designated airport areas. The detention order was served on 12 January 1991 along with grounds and documents.
The detenu’s wife, Smt Kusum Chandrakant Khaushe, filed Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 147 of 1991 before the Bombay High Court challenging the detention, but the High Court dismissed it. She then filed Civil Appeal (arising from the dismissed writ petition) and Writ Petition No. 1234 of 1991 before the Supreme Court, which were heard together.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether non-placement of the detenu’s suspension order dated 14 August 1990 before the detaining authority vitiated the order of detention.
- Whether the detenu’s alleged retraction of his confession, contained only in an application for reduction of bail dated 27 August 1990, undermined the satisfaction reached by the detaining authority.
- Whether the time interval between the seizure of contraband (22 July 1990) and the detention order (11 January 1991) constituted undue and fatal delay.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant’s Arguments
- The sponsoring authority’s failure to place the suspension order, which explicitly barred the detenu from the airport, deprived the detaining authority of a vital document that could have altered its decision.
- The High Court wrongly ignored the detenu’s retraction statement found in his bail-reduction application, which showed that his earlier confession was coerced.
- The six-month gap between the seizure and the detention order demonstrated inexcusable delay, breaking the live-link necessary for preventive detention.
Respondent’s Arguments
- The detention order was based on the detenu’s own confessional statements and other material; the suspension order was irrelevant, and its non-placement caused no prejudice.
- No contemporaneous document showed an immediate retraction when the detenu was first produced before the court; the isolated statement in the bail-reduction application lacked probative value.
- The delay was adequately explained and did not affect the purpose of preventive detention given the gravity of the smuggling activity and continuing propensity indicated by prior acts.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court examined each submission and concurred with the Bombay High Court’s earlier findings:
- Suspension order: The Court accepted the respondent’s assertion that the detenu’s own confession revealed established links at the airport and that the suspension order merely prevented further access; therefore, its absence before the detaining authority caused no prejudice and did not vitiate the subjective satisfaction.
- Retraction claim: The Court noted, as had the High Court, that there was no documentary evidence of a retraction at the earliest opportunity. The only reference appeared much later in an application for reduction of bail, which the Court found insufficient to undermine the detention.
- Alleged delay: Considering the facts, circumstances, and the explanation offered, the Court held that the interval between seizure and detention was not unreasonable and did not sever the nexus between past conduct and the need for preventive custody.
Finding no legal infirmity in the detention order, the Court dismissed every ground advanced by the appellant.
Holding and Implications
Both the appeal and the writ petition are DISMISSED.
Immediate consequence: the order of detention against Chandrakant Mahadev Khaushe remains in force, and the challenge by his wife fails. The judgment affirms the High Court’s decision and does not set new precedent beyond applying settled principles on non-placement of documents, retractions, and delay in preventive detention.
Order
1. Leave granted.
2. Both the above appeal and writ petition are directed by Smt Kusum Chandrakant Khaushe who is the wife of the detenu, namely, Chandrakant Mahadev Khaushe.
3. The detenu, Chandrakant Mahadev Khaushe is detained under the strength of the order of detention passed by the Secretary (Preventive Detention) to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department who is respondent 1 in both the matters in exercise of the powers conferred under sub-section (i) of Section 3 of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) with a view to preventing the detenu from engaging in transporting smuggled goods.
4. In the wee hours of July 22, 1990, the customs officers posted at the Sahar International Airport, Bombay found two special equipment boxes bearing Nos. 20 and 21 being abnormally heavy which boxes were kept in the special compartment in the bulk cargo hold on the rear side of the aircraft which had earlier arrived from Tokyo as Flight No. AI 309. On suspicion, the seals of the boxes were broken. On opening the special equipment box No. 20 in the presence of witnesses, two jackets of navy blue colour cloth having 16 compartments each were found. From the abovesaid two jackets, 128 gold bars weighing 14920.80 grams were recovered. From box No. 21, the customs officers removed 9 gold spanners collectively weighing 10,000 grams. From the two other metallic boxes, the customs officers further found 24 gold bars weighing 24,000 grams. The total weight of the gold was found to be of 48,924.80 grams, the local market of which was estimated as on that date at Rs 1,61,45,184. The statement of the detenu who was working as Storekeeper at the material time in the Stores and Purchase Department of Air India was recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act on two occasions, namely, on July 22 and 23, 1990 wherein the detenu has stated that he knew one Vinod Michael who was working with Air India since last 8 years and that the said Vinod Michael offered him the job of taking gold spanner from the special equipment boxes two months prior to the incident for a suitable remuneration and that he did so on three occasions and delivered the contraband to the said Vinod Michael. Regarding the seized gold, the detenu has stated that the said Vinod Michael telephoned him on July 19, 1990 informing him that ‘mal’ would be coming on July 21, 1990 on Tokyo Flight No. AI 309. The detenu brought the gold with the help of one Pol, a cleaner in the Department. The officials of the Customs Department took statements from various persons inclusive of the abovesaid Pol under Section 108 of the Customs Act on July 22, 1990. The entire contraband was seized and a panchnama in the presence of witnesses was prepared.
5. The detenu and the said Pol were arrested and produced before the Magistrate on July 23, 1990 and were remanded to the judicial custody. However, they came out on bail on September 3, 1990 and September 12, 1990 respectively. The impugned order of detention as against the detenu was passed on January 11, 1991 which order was served on the detenu on January 12, 1991 along with the grounds of detention and list of documents annexed thereto.
6. On being aggrieved by the order of detention, the present petitioner (the wife of the detenu) filed a writ petition which was numbered as Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 147 of 1991 before the High Court of Bombay challenging the validity of the detention order on many grounds but the High Court rejected all those grounds and dismissed the writ petition as devoid of any merit. Hence the present appeal. Along with this appeal, the petitioner has also filed Writ Petition No. 1234 of 1991 challenging the very same order of detention. Hence we are rendering a common judgment in both the matters.
7. According to Shri R.K Jain, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, the omission or failure on the part of the sponsoring authority to place the order of suspension dated August 14, 1990 which has expressly cut the movement of the detenu in the alleged area of his operation is a very vital and material document which if had been placed before the detaining authority that material document would have weighed with the detaining authority to take a decision one way or other. Of course, the same contention has been raised before the High Court but the High Court has not accepted that contention. The relevant portion of the suspension order reads as under:
“You are hereby informed that NIPT Complex and Old Airport areas have been declared as prohibited areas and hence you are prohibited from entering these areas without express permission of the undersigned or any competent authority.”
8. This contention is answered by the respondent in paragraph 7 of his affidavit stating that the detenu has already confessed that he had on three earlier occasions indulged in such activities and that it is inferred from those statements that the detenu had established links at the Airport and that but for the suspension order, it would not have been possible from preventing the detenu to enter into the prohibited area and that the non placing of this suspension order has not caused any prejudice to the detenu. According to him, the order of detention was not based on such a document. After carefully going through the counter-affidavit, we do not see any force in the submission made by the learned counsel. Hence this submission is rejected.
9. The second submission made by the learned counsel is that the High Court has failed to consider the statement of retraction of the detenu made in the application dated August 27, 1990 praying for reduction of the bail amount in the proper perspective. Admittedly, in the earlier bail application no such retraction has been made. The only alleged retraction statement as found in the bail application for reduction of the bail amount reads as follows:
“Nothing incriminating has been found from their person or from their residence. The only evidence is their forced statements, which they have been retracted on the first day of their production in the Court.”
10. As rightly pointed out by the High Court, there is no supporting document showing that the detenu has retracted even at the earliest point of time when he was produced before the Court on the first occasion. The High Court before which the same contention has been raised has carefully examined and rejected for the reasons given in paragraph 4 of its judgment. On carefully examining this contention, we see no force in this submission also.
11. Incidentally, it was submitted that there was a considerable delay in passing the detention order from the date of the seizure of the contraband. But having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also the explanation given by the respondent we do not find any merit in this contention also. After going through the records, we are in full agreement with the view taken by the High Court that the said detention order does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting our interference in the impugned judgment of the High Court.
12. In the result, both the appeal as well as the writ petition are dismissed.
Alert