N Criminal Appeal No 451 of 1978
Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment AND order dated S G 78 of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Application No 15 of 1978
Ram Jethmalani Ashok Desai section J Thakore K R Krishnamurthy Sri Narain for Ms J B Dadachanji and Co for the Appellants
H R Khanna and M N Shroff for the State of Maharashtra
P N Lekhi Girish Chandra and Miss A Subhashini for Union of India
The judgment of the Court was delivered by SEN J
This appeal by special leave directed against a judgment of the Bombay High Court dated 5th June 1978 dismissing a petition filed by the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution by which he prayed for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus and the connected petition under Article 32 of the Constitution by his wife for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus for his release raise a common question and therefore they are disposed of by this common judgment
A vessel known as Jamnaprasad  BLS 61 valued at one lac of rupees was found grounded in a creek off the coast near village KimKhadi on the 20th August 1977
On receipt of information regarding the grounding of the vessel the Customs officers Hansot visited the spot and examined the contents of the cargo aboard the aforesaid grounded vessel
It was laden with 12 rolls of stainless steel sheets each weighing one tonne valued at Rs 1544400 
The aforesaid vessel and the contraband goods found aboard it were seized by the 318 Customs officers for action under the 
They made inquiries about the whereabouts of the crew members of the aforesaid vessel Jamnaprasad  and were successful in apprehending them and the others involved
Intelligence gathered by the Customs officers clearly indicate that the appellant was the main person connected with the smuggling of the aforesaid cargo of contraband goods namely 12 stainless steel sheets recovered from vessel Jamnaprasad  BLS 61
The appellant who ostensibly carries on the business of manufacturing sale and export of Umrao brand wick stoves spray pumps cash and jewellery metal boxes in the name and style of Umrao Industries and has his factory for the manufacture of the aforesaid items at village Kim has been detained by an order of the Addl
Secretary to the Government of India Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue New Delhi dated the 1st of February 1978 under sub section 1 of section 3 of the  with a view to prevent him from smuggling goods
He was arrested and placed under detention on the 5th of February 1978 and is at present detained in the Central Prison Bombay
At the time of his arrest the appellant was served with the order of detention together with the grounds of detention with full particulars on which the order of detention was based
On 15th February 1978 the case was referred by the Government to the Advisory Board as required under section 8b of the Act to enable the Board to make its report under sub cl
a of cl
4 of Article 22 of the
Constitution
The appellant made two representations against his detention to the Government one dated the 4th and the other dated the 6th of March 1978 which were received by the Government on the 7th and 8th March 1978 respectively
The Advisory Board had in the meanwhile addressed a letter dated 21st of February 1978 to the Government intimating that the case would be taken up on the 13th March asking that the detenu be produced at the hearing and the Government should also forward the representation if any made by the appellant together with the commentsdecision of the Government if any
On the 13th of March the appellant was accordingly produced before the Advisory Board
The Government placed before the Board the two representations made by the appellant together with its comments
The appellant was heard in person the Government s point of view was placed before the Advisory Board by the Deputy Secretary to the Government Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue who was accompanied by the Assistant Collector
Customs 319 Bulsar
On the 16th of March 1978 the appellant sent a telegram to the Advisory Board supplementing his oral submissions
The detaining authority rejected the representations made by the appellant on 1 8th of March 1978
On 10th of April 1978 the Advisory Board submitted its report giving its opinion that there was sufficient cause for the detention
The Government accordingly confirmed the order B of detention
In the light of the circumstances appearing it was conceded that the grounds for detention set out the facts with sufficient degree of particularity and that it did furnish sufficient nexus for forming the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority
The order of detention was therefore not challenged on the ground that the grounds furnished were vague or indefinite or lacking in particulars or were not adequate or sufficient for the satisfaction of the detaining authority or for the making of any effective representation
It is argued that the detention of the appellant was however bad for two reasons namely 1 the detention was in violation of the constitutional right guaranteed under Article 225 inasmuch as the Government withheld consideration of the representations made by the appellant till after the hearing before the Advisory Board and 2 the impugned order of detention is bad due to non application of mind inasmuch as the facts alleged clearly and distinctly show that the appellant did not himself smuggle the contraband goods
Both the contentions are in our opinion wholly devoid of substance
It is urged that the Government was under a constitutional obligation to consider the representations before the hearing before the Advisory Board
There is no quarrel with the principle but the difficulty is about the application of the principle on the facts and circumstances of the present case
In fact the Government has to reach its decision uninfluenced by the opinion of the Advisory Board
It is however urged that the Government in This particular case had not made up its mind till the hearing before the Advisory Board on 13th March 1978 and therefore its decision reached on the 18th March was not that independent application of mind that the law requires because by then the proceedings had begun before the Board and the Government must have been influenced in its decision
There is no warrant for the submission that the disposal of the 1 representations made by the Government in the instant case was not in conformity with Article 225 of the Constitution
First we shall 320 deal with the law on the subject before dealing with the factual aspect
Article 225 of the Constitution enacts When any person is detained in pursuance of an order made under any law providing for preventive detention the authority making the order shall as soon as may be communicate to such person the grounds on which the order has been made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order In Abdul Karim  ors
vs State of West Bengalt this Court interpreted the language of Article 225 and observed Article 225 does not expressly say to whom the representation is to be made and how the detaining authority is to deal with the representation
But it is necessarily implicit in the language of article 225 that the State Government to whom the representation is made should properly consider the representation as expeditiously as possible
The constitution of an Advisory Board under section 8 of the Act does not relieve the State Government from the legal obligation to consider the representation of the detenu as soon as it is received by it
 It was further observed In our opinion the constitutional right to make a representation guaranteed by article 225 must be taken to in elude by necessary implication the constitutional right to a proper consideration of the representation by the authority to whom it is made
The right of representation under article 225 is a valuable constitutional right and is not a mere formality
It is therefore not possible to accept the argument of the respondent that the State Government is not under a legal obligation to consider the representation of the detenu or that the representation must be kept in cold storage in the archives of the Secretariat till the time or occasion for sending it to the Advisory Board is reached
If the view point contended for by the respondent is correct the constitutional right under article 225 would be rendered illusory
 Thus the two obligations of the Government to refer the case of the detenu to the Advisory Board and to obtain its report on the one hand and to give an earliest opportunity to him to make a representation and consider the representation on the other are two distinct obligations independent of each other
1   321 In Pankaj Kumar Chakrabarty  ors
vs State of West Bengal1 this Court again considered cl
5 of article 22 and enunciate the Following principle In our view it is clear from cls
4 and S of article 22 that there is a dual obligation on the appropriate Government and a dual right in favour of the detenu namely 1 to have his representation irrespective of the length of detention considered by the appropriate Government and 2 to have once again that representation in the light of the circumstances of the case considered by the board before it gives its opinion
If in the light of that representation the board finds that there is no sufficient cause for detention the Government has to revoke the order of detention and set at liberty the detenu
Thus whereas the Government considers the re presentation to ascertain whether the order is in conformity with its power under the relevant law the board considers such representation from the point of view of arriving at its opinion whether there is sufficient cause for detention
 It is therefore well settled that in case of preventive detention of a citizen the Constitution by article 225 as interpreted by this Court enjoins that the obligation of the appropriate Government to afford the detenu the opportunity to make a representation and to consider that representation is distinct from the Government s obligation to constitute a Board and to communicate the representation amongst other materials to the Board to enable it to form its opinion and to obtain such opinion
The nature of the dual obligation of the Government and the corresponding dual right in favour of the detenu under article 225 was reiterated by this Court in Khairul Haque vs The State of West Bengal2 in these words It is implicit in the language of article 22 that the appropriate Government while discharging its duty to consider the representation cannot depend upon the views of the Board on such representation
It has to consider the representation on its own without being influenced by any such view of the Board
There was therefore no reason for the Government to wait for considering the petitioner s representation until it had received the report of the Advisory Board
As laid down in Sk
Abdul Karim  ors
vs State of West Bengal supra the obligation of the appropriate 1 1970 I SCR 543
2 WP No 246 of 1969 decided on September 10 1969
322 Government under article 225 is to consider the representation made by the detenu as expeditiously as possible
The consideration by the Government of such representation has to be as aforesaid independent of any opinion which may be expressed by the Advisory Board
The fact that article 225 enjoins upon the detaining authority to afford to the detenu the earliest opportunity to make a representation must implicitly mean That such representation must when made be considered and disposed of as expeditiously as possible otherwise it is obvious that the obligation to furnish the earliest opportunity to make a representation loses both its purpose and meaning
 The same procedural safeguards were reaffirmed by this Court in Jayanarayan Sukul vs State of West Bengal 1 and Dhurus Kanu vs State of West Bengal2 The High Court in this case and the Delhi High Court in Thaneshwar Singh vs The Union of India  ors3 appear to be labouring under misconception that merely because there is no express provision in s8b of the placing an obligation to forward the representation made by the detenu along with the reference to the Advisory Board unlike those contained in s9 of the and s10 of the Maintenance of Intemal Security Act 1971 there is no obligation cast on the Government to consider the representation made by the detenu before forwarding it to the Advisory Board
We have no doubt in our mind that when liberty of the subject is involved whether be it under the or the or the  it is the bounden duty of the court to satisfy itself that all the safeguards provided by the law have been scrupulously observed and that the subject is not deprived of his personal liberty otherwise than in accordance with law
The relevant Articles of the Constitution having a bearing on this question is article 22
Two of these safeguards which relate to the observance of the principle of natural justice and which a fortiori are intended to act as a check on the arbitrary exercise of power are tor be found in article 225 of the Constitution
1  2 AIR 1975 SC 571
3 Cr W No 6 of 1978 decided on September 25 1978 Delhi High Court 323 When any person is detained in pursuance of an order made under any law providing for preventive detention the authority making the order shall as soon as may be communicate to such person the grounds  on which the order has been made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making representation against the order These procedural safeguards are ingrained in our system by judicial interpretation
The power of preventive detention by the Government under the  is necessarily subject to the limitations enjoined on the exercise of such power by Art 225 of the Constitution
as constructed by this Court
Thus this Court in Khudiram Das vs The State of West Bengal  ors 1 observed The constitutional imperatives enacted in this article are two fold 1 the detaining authority must as soon as may be that is as soon as practicable after the detention communicate to the detenu the grounds on which the order of detention has been made and 2 the detaining authority must afford the detenu the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order of detention
These are the barest minimum safeguards which must be abserved before an executive authority can be permitted to preventively detain a person and thereby drown his right of personal liberty in the name of public good and social security
 This has always been the view consistently taken by this Court in a series of decision
It is not necessary to burden this judgment with citations of these decisions
The view to the contrary taken by the Bombay and the Delhi High Courts that these procedural safe guards are not available to a person detained under the is clearly wrong
The Constitution is all pervasive
All laws made by a State must therefore yield to constitutional limitations and restrictions
The citizen s right to personal liberty is guaranteed by Article 22 irrespective of his political beliefs class creed or religion
This Court has forged certain procedural safeguards in the case of preventive detention of citizens
These safeguards might be designated as a regulative Postulate of Respect  that is respect for the intrinsic dignity of the human person
1  324 In pursuit of the idealistic considerations as to the inherent worth and dignity of men the Parliament in the light of the experience gained recently repealed the 
The repeal of that Act is necessitated to promote the citizen s right to personal liberty which is a fundamental and pervasive theme of the Constitution to guard against the preventive detention of a person for political beliefs
This was also in accord with the recommendation of the Law Commission in its Forty seventh Report p 2 para 14 that preventive detention should be retained only for preventing anti social and economic offences
The repeal of the and the retention of the  however does not imply that preventive detention which is an anachronism in a democratic society like ours can be freely used without any power of judicial review and without any checks and balances against persons engaged in anti social and economic offences
This assumption by the two High Courts ignores centuries of judicial lawmaking when it denies the competence of courts to weigh competing social interests
The courts have always viewed with disfavour the detention without trial whatever be the nature of offence
The detention of individuals without trial for any length of time howsoever short is wholly inconsistent with the basic ideas of our Government
To put it less euphemistically the alternative is the renunciation of judicial review itself and acceptance of the intolerable principle that the Government is the judge of its own powers
So this Court observed in Prabhu Dayal Deorah vs District Magistrate Kamrup We say and we think it is necessary to repeat that the gravity of the evil to the community resulting from antisocial activities can never furnish an adequate reason for invading the personal liberty of a citizen except in accordance with the procedure established by the constitution and the laws
The history of personal liberty is largely the history of insistence on observance of procedure
Observance of procedure has been the bastion against wanton assaults on personal liberty over the years
Under our Constitution the only guarantee of personal liberty for person is that he shall not be deprived of it except in accordance with the procedure established by law
The need today for maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community cannot be over emphasized
There will be no social security without maintenance of adequate supplies 1  at 22 23 325 and services essential to the community
But social security is not the only goal of a good society
There are other values in a society
Our country is taking singular pride in the democratic ideals enshrined in its Constitution and the most cherished of these ideals is personal liberty
It would indeed be ironic if in the name of social security we would sanction the subversion of this liberty
 The constitutional safeguards embodied in article 225 of the Constitution as construed by this Court must therefore be read into the provisions of section 8b of to prevent any arbitrary executive action
In the instant case however there was no infraction or the constitutional safeguards enshrined in article 225
We are satisfied that there was no failure on the part of the Government to discharge its obligation under article 225
The records of the Government as well as of Advisory Board have been placed before us It clearly shows that the Government had forwarded the two representations made by the appellant on the 4th and 6th of March 1978 alongwith its comments in writing together with a forwarding letter on the 9th of March 1978
From a bare perusal of the forwarding letter and the accompanying para wise comments in writing it is amply clear that the Government had already formed an opinion that the order of detention was in conformity with its powers under the law
It cannot therefore be said that the Government in rejecting the representations made by the appellant by its order dated 18th March 1978 was in any way influenced by the views expressed by the Board
Though the Government was represented at the hearing by the Deputy Secretary Ministry of Finance Revenue Department and the Assistant Collector Customs Bulsar it is nobody s case that the Advisory Board had at the hearing indicated its mind as to whether there was sufficient cause for detention
On the contrary the telegram sent by the appellant on the 16th March 1978 ex facie shows that the Board had not expressed its mind at the hearing
It is therefore irrefutable that the Government had taken a decision uninfluenced by what transpired at the hearing before the Board
The matter was dealt with by the Government at all levels and the detaining authority had come to an independent conclusion of his own by applying his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case
Here similarly the Board by its report dated the 10th April 1978 independently arrived at its opinion that there was sufficient cause for detention 
326 Learned counsel for the appellant next strenuously contends that there was non application of mind on the part of the detaining authority
It was submitted that though the order for detention was made with a view to preventing the appellant from smuggling goods ie under cl
i of sub section 1 of section 3 of the Act his case on the facts revealed in the grounds for detention clearly fell under clii of sub s1 of section 3 as he could not by any stretch of imagination be treated to be a smuggler but he was only an abettor
May be he instigated organised and facilitated the act of smuggling but it is said the actual smuggling of the contraband goods was by others
His act there fore constituted abetment of smuggling for which there is a separate clause under section 3iii
The order of detention cannot therefore be justified under s31 i
Applying a wrong clause it is urged shows non application of mind
We are afraid the learned counsel is stretching the argument too fine
Section 31 of the Act so far material reads The Central Government or the State Government or any officer of the Central Government not below the rank of a Joint Secretary to that Government specially em powered for the purposes of this section by that Government or any officer of a State Government not below the rank of a Secretary to that Government specially em powered for the purposes of this section by that Government may 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 or augmentation of foreign exchange or with a view to preventing him from i smuggling goods or ii abetting the smuggling of goods or There is no doubt a distinction between an act of smuggling and abetting the smuggling of goods for purposes of preventive detention under section 3 1 of the Act
Nonetheless the term smuggling  as defined in section 2e of the Act has the same meaning as in section 239 the  which when read with section 111 of that Act is wide enough to include and make liable not only the actual smuggler but also persons abetting the smuggling or contraband goods as well as all persons dealing in such goods etc
Though the provisions of cls
i and ii of sub s1 of section 3 of the Act may operate on different fields which may sometimes as here overlap still a wider meaning is given 327 to the term smuggling in section 2e of the Act with a view to broaden the scope of preventive detention
Sub section 1 of section 3 of the Act provides for the different grounds of detention
Clause i relates lo smuggling of goods clause ii relates to abetting the smuggling of goods clause iii relates to engaging in transporting or concealing or keeping smuggled goods clause v relates to harbouring persons engaged in smuggling goods or in abetting the smuggling of goods
It must therefore be assumed that the intention of the legislature was to treat the smuggling of goods and abetting the smuggling of goods as grounds separate and distinct and both are separate grounds for detention ie to take in all such activities which result in accomplishment of smuggling of contraband goods
In a case like the present where there is a widespread network employed by a person it cannot be said that he is not engaged in the act of smuggling
It is accepted before us that the appellant
instigated organised and facilitated the smuggling of the contraband goods in question
Not only that but he is really the person to whom the goods belonged
The appellant went to the extent of going to Dubai for purchasing the contraband goods had thereafter taken delivery of the same at Dubai and had them loaded into the vessel the vessel actually belonged to the appellant and the crew members were engaged by his agent Siddiq Hussain who was sent from Bombay to Dubai to bring the vessel
He took charge of the vessel as a tindel and but for the fact that the rudder of the vessel failed the contraband stainless steel rolls would have landed in the creek near The factory of the appellant
It is clear that Kunji Mohmed in whose name the vessel Jamnaprasad  BLS 61 was registered was merely a dummy but the vessel actually belonged to the appellant who had purchased it from one Kasam Jamal for a sum of Rs 40000 
It was he who got the vessel repaired at Bombay and an oil engine fitted and he through his agent Siddiq Hussain Sup engaged the members of the crew
It appears that the appellant left for Dubai on the 18th of May 1977 by air and returned to Bombay on the 2nd June 1977
He prolonged this stay at DubaiAbu Dhabi for seven days and had to pay a fine of 100 Dirhams per day for his over stay
During his period of stay at Dubai he purchased 20 rolls of stainless steel sheets worth rupees 20 lacs
It also appears that the appellant and Kunji Mohmed wanted to load the whole of the contraband good into the vessel but the driver Ali and Amad Mamad the tindel refused to carry such a heavy cargo
The appellant told them that 328 he would go to Bombay and send Siddiq Hussain Sup
It further appears that the oil engine in the vessel was replaced with his concurrence with a new diesel engine
After his departure only 12 rolls of stainless steel sheets could be loaded in the vessel by Kunji Mohmed and Amad Mamad
There after while the vessel was on its voyage to India it developed engine trouble and had to remain at sea for about ten days whereafter it returned to Sarjah port in Dubai
In the meanwhile Siddiq Hussain Sup had reached there from Bombay on instructions from the appellant and took charge of the vessel as tindel
The vessel again left Sarjah port but had W remain in the sea near Khodgam for about 8 to 10 days due to stormy weather
After a voyage of about 6 to 7 days the vessel reached near the coast of India outside the creek where it was found grounded
It had to be anchored at a place known to Siddiq Hussain Sup that is near about the factory of Umrao Industries belonging to the appellant in village Kim but the crew members lost the track and had to move around the creek for about 4 days because the rudder had failed
Then lt entered the aforesaid creek some 20 kms
away from the factory where it ran aground due to damage to the rudder
During a search of the house of Kunji Mohmed certain documents relating to the repairs of vessel No BLS 61 and a dairy containing telephone Nos
395279 375943 and 361973 and also one postal receipt No 55955 issued by Jamnagar Post office showing looking of a trunk call to telephone No 395279 or 375943 were found
The first two telephone numbers have been installed at the Bombay office of the appellant while the third is at his residence at Bombay
The postal receipt No 55955 showed that this trunk call from Jamnagar was booked for Bombay in the name of the appellant
Two more trunk call ticket Nos
L 0285 and 158 dated 18th June 1977 showed that the former trunk call was booked by him to Okha telephone No 91 with Siddiq Hussain Sup as PP while the latter was in respect of the return call lightening made by the appellant to the aforesaid okha telephone
The trunk call booked from telephone No 91 okha was to the appellant s office telephone No 395279 in Bombay with P P Babubhai
Obviously the over stay of the appellant at Dubai was in connection with the loading of the contraband stainless steel sheet rolls which have been valued at Rs 1544400 
The synchronising of the visit with the taking of the vessel to Dubai and then loading of the stainless steel rolls for the purpose of transportation to India are very significant and unimpeachable circumstances to show the smuggling pro pensities of the appellant
329 It is quite clear from the facts set out in the grounds of detention that the appellant was the person who was actually engaged in the act of smuggling of the contraband stainless steel rolls into the Indian customs waters
It is therefore clear that for all intents and purposes the appellant was the actual smuggler and not a mere abettor
Furthermore the activities of the appellant were such that his case would be covered by both clauses i and ii of section 31 of the Act
Thus there was due application of mind
It is manifest that the appellant could in the instant case be detained under sub s1 of section 3 of the both under clauses i and ii thereof
In any case even assuming that the appellant was merely an abettor of the smuggling of 12 rolls of stainless steel sheets on this occasion still his activities in this transaction afforded sufficient grounds for the prognosis that he would have himself indulged in actual smuggling of the balance lot of 8 rolls of stainless steel sheets remaining behind at Dubai if not detained and as such cl
i section 31 of the Act was properly invoked
In the result both the appeal as well as the writ petition must fail and are dismissed
There shall be no order as to cost PBR Appeal and Petition dismissed


Summary:
The appellant was detained under section 31 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange an1 Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act 1974 with a view to prevent him from smuggling goods
Two representations made by him against his detention were forwarded by the Government to the Advisory Board with its comments
He was later produced before the Advisory Board
On receipt of the Advisory Board s report that there was sufficient cause for detention the order of detention was confirmed by the Government
The High Court dismissed his petition under article 226 of the Constitution
In appeal the appellant challenged the order of detention on the ground that 1 it was in violation of the right guaranteed under article 225 inasmuch as the Government withheld consideration of the representations made by him till after the hearing by the Advisory Board and 2 the impugned order of detention was bad due to non application of mind of the detaining authority inasmuch as the facts alleged clearly and distinctly showed that the appellant did not himself smuggle the goods
Dismissing the appeal  HELD 1a There was no warrant for the submission that the disposal of the representations made by the Government was not in conformity with article 225 of the Constitution
319H b It is well settled that in case of preventive detention of a citizen Art 225 of the Constitution enjoins that the obligation of the appropriate Government to afford the detenu an opportunity to make a representation and to consider that representation is distinct from the Government s obligation to constitute a Board and to communicate the representation amongst other material to the Board to
enable it to form its opinion and to obtain such opinion
321E Abdul Karim  ors
vs State of West Bengal   Pankaj Kumar Cluakrabarly  ors
vs State of West Bengal   Khuairul Haque vs The State of West Bengal W P No 246 of 1969 decided on September 10 1969 Jayanarayan sukul vs State of West Bengal  Dhurus Kanu vs State of West Bengal AIR 1975 SC 571 referred to
c The constitutional safeguards embodied in article 225 must be read into the provisions of section 8b of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Preventional of Smuggling Activities Act 1974 to prevent any arbitrary executive action
Merely because there is no express provision in section 8b of the Act placing an obligation to forward the representation made by the detenu along 316 with the reference to the Advisory Board unlike the provisions contained in section 9 of the and section 10 of the  it cannot be said that there is no obligation cast on the Government to consider the representation made by the detenu before forwarding it to the Advisory Board
325C 322D E Thaneshwar Singh vs The Union of India  ors
 Cr W No 6 of 197 decided on September 25 1978 Delhi High Court over ruled
d When the liberty of the subject is involved whether it is under the or the or the  it is the bounden duty of the Court to satisfy itself that all the safeguards provided by the law had been scrupulously observed and that the subject was not deprived of his personal liberty otherwise than in accordance with his
322 G e When any person is detained in pursuance of an order made under any law providing for preventive detention the authority making the order shall as soon as may be communicate to such person the ground on which the order had been made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making representations against the order
These procedural safeguards are ingrained in our system of judicial interpretation
The power of preventive detention by the Government under the Act is necessarily subject to the limitations enjoined on the exercise of such power by article 225 of the Constitution
323A Khudiram Das vs The State of West Bengal  ors  referred to
In the instant case there was no infraction of constitutional safeguards enshrined under article 225 and there was no failure on the part of the Government to discharge its obligations under that article
Quite clearly the Government had forwarded the appellant s two representations alongwith its comments to the Advisory Board
A perusal of the comments of the Government make it clear that the Government had already formed an opinion that the order of detention was in conformity with its powers under the law
It cannot be said that in rejecting the appellant s representations the Government was influenced by the views expressed by the Board
At the hearing the Board had not indicated its mind as to whether there was sufficient cause for detention
It is therefore irrefutable that the Government had taken a decision uninfluenced by what transpired at the hearing before the Board
The matter was dealt with by the Government all all levels and the detaining authority had come to an independent conclusion of its own by applying its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case
325D H 2a The intention of the legislature in enacting section 31 was to treat the smuggling of goods and abetting the smuggling of goods as grounds separate and distinct and both are separate grounds for detention ie to take in all such activities which result in accomplishment of smuggling of contraband goods the term smuggling  as defined in section 2e of the Act read with section 239 and s 111 of the Customs Act is wide enough to include and make liable not only the actual smugglers but also persons abetting the smugglers of contraband goods as well as all persons dealing with any such goods
A wider meaning is given to the term smuggling  in section 2e of the Act with a view to broaden the scope of Preventive detention
In a case like the present where a wide 317 spread network is employed by a person it cannot be said that he was not Engaged in the act of smuggling
The appellant was not only the person who instigated organised and facilitated the smuggling of the contraband goods but he was really a person to whom the goods belonged
The facts set out in the ground of detention make it clear that the appellant was the person who was actually engaged in the act of smuggling of contraband goods into the Indian Customs waters For all intents and purposes the appellant was the actual smuggler and not a mere abettor His  activities were such that his case would be covered by both clauses i and ii of section 31 of the Act
326G H 327A B b Assuming that the appellant was merely an abettor in the smuggling of contraband goods on this occasion still his activities in this transaction afforded sufficient grounds for the prognosis that he would have himself included in actual smuggling of the balance of contraband goods by remaining behind in the foreign country
329D