Case: Narendra Purshotam Umrao Etc Vs. B. B. Gujral &amp; Ors

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.20. 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. 40, 000/-. 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 Dubai/Abu Dhabi for seven days and had to pay a fine of 100 Dirhams per day for his over-stay.21. 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 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 p ort 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 it 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 c ontaining telephone Nos. 395279, 375943 and 361973 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 P.P., 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 appellants office telephone No. 395279 in Bombay with P. P. Babubhai.22. 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. 15, 44, 400/- . 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 propensities of the appellant.23. 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 s. 3(1) 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-s.(1) of s. 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 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) s. 3(1) of the Act was properly invoked.24.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]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 effectiveis, no doubt, a distinction between an act of smuggling and abetting the smuggling of goods for purposes of preventive detention under s. 3 (1) of the Act. Nonetheless, the term "smuggling as defined in s. 2(e) of the Act has the same meaning as in s. 2(39)the Customs Act, 1962, which, when read with s. 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-s(1) of s. 3 of the Act ma y operate on different fields, which may sometimes, as here, overlap, still a wider meaning is given to the term smuggling in s. 2(e) of the Act, with a view to broaden the scope of preventive detention. Sub-section (1) of s. 3 of the Act provide s 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 i.e., 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 theis 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. 40, 000/-. 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 Dubai/Abu Dhabi for seven days and had to pay a fine of 100 Dirhams per day for hishis 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 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 p ort 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 it 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 c ontaining telephone Nos. 395279, 375943 and 361973  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 P.P., 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 appellants office telephone No. 395279 in Bombay with P. P.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. 15, 44, 400/- . 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 propensities of theis 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 s. 3(1) 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-s.(1) of s. 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 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) s. 3(1) of the Act was properlyare afraid, the learned counsel is stretching the argument too fine.