ORDER
'. Rule 14 of the Karnataka State (Transactions of Business) Rules, 1977 lays down that the Minister In-charge shall be primarily responsible for the disposal of the business pertaining to his department. Rule 19 of the said Rules provides as to how the orders of the Governor are to be- communicated. This rule reads as under :
'19(1)Orders and instruments made and executed in the name of the Governor of Karnataka, shall be authenticated by the signature of a Secretary, an Additional Secretary, a Special Secretary, a Joint Secretary, a Deputy Secretary, an Under Secretary, or by such other officer as may be specially empowered in that behalf by the Governor in the manner specified below, and such signature shall be deemed to be the proper authentication of such order or instrument :- By Order and in the name of the Governor of Karnataka. (Signature) Name and designation of the Officer authorised to sign.' This procedure appears to. have been meticulously followed in the case of the present detenu. The order of rejection, though is of the .Home Minister, but it has been authenticated and communicated to the detenu, under the signature of the Under Secretary. There is no illegality on this score. Under similar circumstances the rules of Business of Government of Maharashtra, came in for consideration in the judgment reported as Smt. Moshma v. State of Maharashtra and another, : [1982]1SCR288 . The operative portion of the judgment is reproduced below :
'WHERE the order of detention was made by the Secretary to Government in exercise of powers conferred under section 3(1) the order could not be said to be invalid merely because the representation made by the detenu against the order of detention was . considered and disposed of by the Minister of State for Home Affairs. When the Order was not made by the Secretary to Government in his individual capacity as an Officer of the State Government but it was made by him as representing the State Government it was the State Government which made the order of detention acting through the instrumentality of the Secretary to Government who was authorised so to act for and on behalf of and in the name of the State Government under the Rules of Business. There is no requirement express or implied in any provision of the Cofeposa Act that the same person who acts for the State Government in making the order of detention must also consider the representation of the detenu. Further, when the Secretary of Government was authorised under standing order of the Chief Minister to deal with and dispose of the case and it was in exercise of the authority thus conferred that he acting for the State Government made the order of detention against the detenu under Section 3(1), it was the State Government which made the order of detention and not the Secretary of Government in his individual capacity. Further, when the order. of detention was made in the name of the Governor of the State and was authenticated by the Under Secretary to the Government and recited in so many words that it was the State Government which was confirming the order of detention and continuing the detention it could not be said that the decision to confirm the order of detention and continue the detention was not taken by the State Government as required by Section 8(f) when the correctness of the order was not displaced by the detenu'. This ratio is fully applicable to the tacts of the present case, except that, here it is the State of Kamataka, whereas in the reported judgment it was State of Maharashtra. Both the State have their own Rules or Business and Allocation or Business Rules. There is thus no force in this submission also.
(11) The last submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order under challenge is not preventive but punitive. The detaining authority while arriving at a subjective satisfaction to detain the petitioner failed to take note of the fact that it was a solitary incident, and the petitioner was not in a position or the capacity to indulge in such like activities in future. The submission is that the detenu is an ordinary resident of Delhi. He is a truck driver by profession, and not a man of means.' In order to earn his livelihood he purchased the truck after taking loan from Union Bank of India, Saharanpur. There is no previous history of such activities to his credit, There is no material on record to suggest that in future he is likely to engage himself in keeping concealing and transporting the smuggled goods, particularly when his vehicle has since been seized. In view of these circumstances, the detention is not preventive but punitive. The stands of the respondents is that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority was arrived at on the material before it and the same cannot be made the subject matter of attack. The detaining authority was fully aware of the propensity of the petitioner in indulging in such like activities in future. The order is based on facts. It is valid and legal. It does not call for any interference.
(12) Preventive detention unlike punitive .detention, which is to punish for the wrong done, is to protect the society by preventing wrong being done. The preventive action postulates if timely step is not taken, the person sought to be prevented will indulge in an activity, by engaging, concealing and transporting of smuggled goods thereby acting prejudicial to the augmentation Of foreign exchange resources of the country. In other words if the activity is not interdicted by the preventive detention order such an activity is likely to be repeated. The problem before this court is that if it is shown that the petitioner detenu has already been effectively prevented, inasmuch as, has been incapacitated by the seizure of his vehicle meant for trans-porting the smuggled goods, then was there any need to pass the order of detention. In this case, in my opinion there was urgent need for immediate action. The detenu is a dryer by profession. His area of operation was Delhi and adjoining States. The lure of easy money led him to fall prey to the attraction offers of one Mohammed and agreed to carry out the illegal activities, of transporting smuggled goods from a far of State to Delhi. In order to achieve this object, he purchased the 'truck after obtaining loan from Union Bank of India, Saharanpur Branch. He was aware of the nature of the goods to be transported. With that end in view he paid a sum of Rs. 1000 to a carpenter for creating a false bottom in the truck to conceal the consignment. While going from Mangalore to the site of loading near the sea-shore the detenu intentionally smeared the number plate of his truck to avoid detection. The loading of silver ingots was completed during the dead darkness. For transporting the previous metal to Delhi he charged Rs. 15,000 instead of normal freight of Rs. 6000. The petitioner took all possible precautions for this daring adventure but unfortunately the mission failed. Although the participation in the act of carrying and transporting the smuggled goods has been voluntary.
(13) Now the question for determination is as to whether a single solitary act attributed to the petitioner is sufficient to warrant an inference that he will repeat his activity in future also Its answer will determine the fate of the petitioner.
(14) The order of detention is essentially a precautionary measure and it is based on a reasonable prognosis of the future behavior of a person based on his past conduct judged in the light of surrounding circumstances. Such past conduct may consist of one single act or of a series of acts. But whatever it be, it must be of such a nature that an inference can reasonably be drawn from it that the person concerned would be likely to repeat such acts to as to warrant his detention (see : Degu Mahto vs State of West Bengal, : 1974CriLJ699 ).
(15) This Very observation was affirmed in the later judgment of the Supreme Court reported as Mrs. Saraswathi Seshagiri vs. State of Kerala and another : AIR1982SC1165 . The relevant observation on this aspect is reproduced below :
'WE must of course make it clear that it is not out view that in no case can a single solitary act attributed to a person form the basis for reach ing a satisfaction that he might repeat such acts in future and in order to prevent him from doing so, it is necessary to detain him. The nature of the act and the attendant circumstances may in a given case be such as to reasonably justify an inference that the person concerned, if not detained, would be likely to indulge in commission of such acts in futuie. The order of detention is essentially a precautionary measure and it is based on a reasonable prognosis of the future behavior of a person based on his past conduct judged in the light of the surrounding circumstances. Such past conduct may consist of one single act or of a series of acts. But whatever it be, it must be of such a nature that an inference can reasonably be drawn from it that the person concerned would be likely to repeat such acts so as to warrant his detention'.
(16) In the present case, to my mind, the detaining authority was well aware of the requirements of law and the precautions which they were expected to take before exercising the power of detention. The impugned order is based on the past conduct of the petitioner, showing his tendencies and inclinations that he is likely even in future to act in a manner prejudicial to the Conservation of Foreign Exchange resources.
(17) It may be that his truck has been sized by Customs Preventive Staff, but that by itself is not enough to dampen his energies in future adventures. He is basically a truck driver by profession. It does not matter for him, if he is not the owner of a vehicle but there is nothing to stop him in engaging himself in the transporting or smuggled goods in the vehicles of others. lie will certainly engage himself in such like activities in future to wipe off the damages he has suffered in the last attempt.
(18) According to the learned counsel for the respondent previously also, the activities of the petitioner has come to the adverse notice of the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. inasmuch as, he was caught, charged and proceeded against for smuggling hashish and heroin from Nepal to India. It was so stated while opposing the bail application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mangalore. It comes to that the present is not the solitary incident. He is a regular defaulter, and will go to any extent. On the pretext of making easy money. He will certainly perform much better in future also as and when an occasion arises.
(19) The petitioner in this case was caught in the act of concealing and transporting the smuggled goods i.e. Silver ingots, in his truck. The. circumstances in which the silver ingots wins being smuggled, as also the facts, which have come to the knowledge of the respondent during interrogation clearly indicate that the detenu was engaged in the activity of smuggling precious metal and if that be so, it could not be said, that the order of detention was passed by the authority without applying its mind. to the facts of the case. The older of detention, to my mind, was passed plainly and indubitably with; a view to preventing the detenu from continuing the activity of smuggling and it was, thereforee, a perfectly valid order of detention. The satisfaction of the detaining authority is based on the material placed before it, and does not call turn interference.
(20) No other point has been raised nor requires going into.I see no force in the petition and the same is hereby dismissed.