ORDER
R. Regupathi, J.
1. The petitioner herein challenges the impugned order of detention, passed by the first, respondent/Secretary to Government in G.O. No. SR. 1/297-2/20G7, Public (SC) Department, dated 09.04.2007, detaining her husband by name Shanthilai S. Jain under the provisions of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (in short ‘Act’).
2. Before proceeding to consider the contentions and counter arguments advanced on either side, for better appreciation of the matter before us, we deem it necessary to refer to the factual details, which ultimately led to passing of the impugned order of detention dated 09.04.2007, in a compact manner.
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) , Chennai, subsequent to receipt of specific intelligence f that M/s. Shine Global Houseware Ltd., Chennai, of which the detenu was the Chairman and Managing Director at the relevant point of time, have imported stainless steel sheets/coils of AISI-304 grade duty free under DEEC (Duty Exemption Entitlement Certificate) Scheme with actual user condition, but, later on, clandestinely diverted the same to M/s. Siddharth Sales Agency, Chennai, set in motion the investigation process. The DRI officials conducted search of the factory premises and, during such course of action, it came to surface that 1898.903 MTs of stainless steel sheets/Coils of AISI-304 grade were imported duty free by M/s. Shine Global Houseware Ltd., Chennai from January, 2005 to February, 2007, however, 1771.232 MTs of the such imported material was neither available nor accounted for, involving estimated Customs Duty of Rs. 5.58 Crores (approximately). With regard to the non-availability of the imported duty free raw material, the statement of the detenu revealed that whenever he was in financial crisis, he diverted the raw material to M/s. Siddharth Sales Agencies and the said diversion is also corroborated by the statements of Lalit Kumar Jain and R. Rajesh, both of M/s. Siddharth Sales Agencies. Further, the persons of M/s. Shine Global Houseware Ltd. have clearly admitted that imported duty free stainless steel sheets/coils of AISI-304 grade were not utilized in the manufacture of export products in M/s Shine Global Houseware Ltd., whereas, only locally procured patta/patties of 202 grade were used for manufacture of utensils for export. As per licence conditions and Customs exemption Notification, where imports were made, the exempted goods shall only be utilized in accordance with the provisions of the Export Import Policy and the relevant customs notification; the licence holder must maintain a proper account of consumption and utilization of the duty free imported goods; and the materials shall not be transferred or sold even after fulfilment of export obligation.
Thus, the crux of the allegation is that the detenu, by flouting and violating the licence conditions and customs exemption notifications, consciously indulged in evasion of huge customs duty, running to crores of rupees.
The Detaining authority, taking note of various relevant aspects viz., arrest of the detenu by DRI, Chennai, on 23.3.2007; his production before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, E.O.II, Egmore, Chennai, who remanded him to judicial custody up to 05.04.2007; remand extension till 19.04.2007; and after considering all the materials relied on and referred to in the grounds of detention, arrived at the subjective satisfaction that it is necessary to detain the detenu under the provisions of the Act with a view to prevent him from indulging in smuggling activities in future and passed the impugned order of detention.
3. At the foremost, learned Counsel for the petitioner assails the order of detention on the ground that there was undue delay on the part of the Jail authorities in transmitting the representation of the detenu to the Government. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, elaborating his submission, states that the representation on behalf of the detenu was prepared by his counsel and sent to the Jail Authorities on 24.04.2007 for getting signature of the detenu. Referring to the endorsement made by the postal authorities, he states that, however, signature of the detenu has been obtained only on 28.04.2007. According to him, whitener has been applied to. overlay the date ‘24.04.2007’, that has been originally typed on the top of the first page, and it was overwritten as 28.04.2007. In all probability, since the Prison is within the city of Chennai, the representation paper sent through post would have reached the Prison on the same day or more positively on the next day. Further, the Government received the representation admittedly on 30.04.2007. Therefore, if the date/period is calculated from 24.04.2007, there is considerable delay on the part of the Jail Authorities in transmitting the representation and, on this ground, the detention order is vitiated. In this regard, specific reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner on the case law reported in 1989 SCC (Cri) 554, (Aslam Ahmed Zahire Ahmed Shaik v. Union of India and Ors.), wherein, it has been held thus:
11. …Indisputably the Superintendent of Central Prison of Bombay to whom the representation was Landed over by the detenu on June 16, 1988 for mere onward transmission to the Central Government has callously ignored and kept it in cold storage unattended for a period of seven days, and as a result of that, the representation reached the government eleven days after it was handed over to the Jail Superintendent. Why the representation was retained by the Jail Superintendent has not at all been explained in spite of the fact that this Court has permitted the respondent to explain the delay in this appeal, if not before the High Court.
12. In our view, the supine indifference, slackness and callous attitude on the part of the Jail Superintendent who had unreasonably delayed in transmitting the representation as an intermediary, had ultimately caused undue delay in the disposal of the appellant’s representation by the government which received the representation eleven days after it was handed over to the Jail Superintendent by the detenu. This avoidable and unexplained delay has resulted in rendering the continued detention of the appellant illegal and constitutionally impermissible.
Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that it may be that the counsel sent the representation prepared by him to the Jail on 24.04.2007 for obtaining the signature of the detenu, but, the detenu has put his signature in the representation on actually receiving the same on 28.04.2007 and this aspect is very much apparent from looking at the handwriting of the detenu in ink in putting his signature and writing the date at the first page; in. such circumstances, there is no delay on the part of the Jail Authorities in forwarding the representation to the Government. Referring to the seal of the Jail Authority to substantiate the actual receipt of the representation only on 28.04.2007, he further submits that, even if the version of the counsel for the petitioner is true, at best, it is only a postal delay and not due to any lapse on the part of the jail authorities.
3-A. On careful consideration of the rival contentions and on perusal of relevant materials including postal receipt, the seal affixed on the representation, signature of the detenu and the correction made by the detenu on the date at the first page, we are of the view that there is no delay in transmitting the representation. Further, the representation forwarded by the Jail Authority at Chennai on 28.04.2007 was received by the second respondent at New Delhi on 30.04.2007 ie., within two days; hence, we find no substance in the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner.
4. Learned Counsel for the detenu next contended that there was delay of 17 days on the part of the Government in considering the representation made by the detenu. In this regard, the learned Counsel relied on an unreported Judgment of this Court in HCP No. 308 of 2006, dated 21.06.2006. With reference to such contention, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel submitted that the representation of the detenu, dated 28.04.2007, was received by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi, on 30.64.2007; parawar remarks were called for from the Sponsoring Authority at Chennai and the same were received on 09.05.2007; on the same day, file was circulated to the Deputy Secretary, who forwarded the same to the Joint Secretary and in turn the File was submitted to the Special Secretary and Director General, Central Economic Intelligence Bureau, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi; by Memorandum dated, 10.05.2007, the representation came to be rejected; and the rejection order was served to the detenu on 15.05.2007. It is further submitted that 1st. 5th & 6th of May, 2007, were holidays on account of May Day, Saturday and Sunday, and excluding those days, if the period is calculated, it is clear that the representation of the detenu has been disposed of by the 2nd respondent without any delay.
4-A. As could be seen from the particulars furnished, the representation, dated 28.04.2007, sent from Madras to the second respondent at New Delhi, was received on 30.04.2007 and the Parawar remarks called for from the Sponsoring Authority reached the COFEPOSA Unit on 09.05,2007. As rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel, considering the three holidays intervened in between coupled with postal delay in getting the remarks from the Sponsoring Authority at Chennai, it cannot be said that there was inordinate delay at any stage. From 09.04.2007 till service of the rejection order on the detenu on 15.05.2007, the authorities acted swiftly; that being so, we are of the considered view that there is no delay either in consideration of the representation or serving the rejection order on the detenu. That the pursuant writ petition itself was filed on 26.4.2007 even before the representation reached the detenu for signature. Considerably the detenu signed the representation only on 28.4.2007. Here, we deem it useful to quote the observation of the Apex court in Senthamilselvi v. State of Tamil Nadu 2006 (3) SCC (Cri) 50, which reads as follows:
6. …There can be no hard-and-fast rule as to the measure of reasonable time and each case has to be considered from the facts of the case and if there is no negligence or callous inaction or avoidable red tapism on the facts of a case, the Court would not interfere. It needs no reiteration that it is the duty of the Court to see that the efficacy of the limited, yet crucial, safeguards provided in the law of preventive detention is not lost in mechanical routine, dull casualness and chill indifference, on the part of the authorities entrusted with their application. When there is remissness, indifference or avoidable delay on the part of the authority, the detention becomes vulnerable. That is not the case at hand. It may be noted that the writ petition was filed on 22.12.2005, even before the order of rejection was served. That being so the detenu cannot make grievance that the State had not explained the position as to how his representation was dealt with.
In view of the same, the second contention also falls to ground.
5. By pointing out that subsequent to his arrest on 23.03.2007, the detenu was remanded to Judicial custody upto 05.04.2007; the order of detention was clamped on the detenu on 09.04.2007; Bail Application was pending before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, and counter has been filed on 09.04.2007; it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that one of the documents heavily relied on by the Detaining Authority is the counter filed before the learned Magistrate, which forms part of the Paper Book, running to 513 pages; in such circumstances, the Detaining Authority could not have applied his mind to each and every document forming part of the paper book and equally, could not have formulated the grounds of detention running to about 38 pages on the same day ie., on 09.04.2007 by applying his mind to all relevant and vital aspects. Therefore, the order of detention suffers from non-application of mind. To fortify his contention in this regard, learned Counsel relied on various decisions of this Court and other High Courts, particularly those reported in 1990 (2) MWN (Crl) 259 (Md. Marzook v. Government of India) 1991 Crl. L.J. 2679 (P.A.S. Syed Mohideen v. It. Secy., Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi)
On the contrary, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that all relevant materials were very much available with the Detaining Authority on 30.03.2007 and the last document was received on 09.04.2007 and it is quite possible for trained officers, enriched with exuberant experience and well conversant with the subject, to prepare the grounds of detention even on a swift but careful perusal of voluminous documents and according to him, on such feeble ground, the detention order cannot be quashed.
5-A. We find that the Sponsoring authority despatched all the relevant materials to the Detaining Authority including true copy of the remand order on 30.03.2007. Subsequently, remand was extended on production of the accused/detenu through Video Conferencing and on the date of passing the detention order ie., on 09.04.2007, the detenu was in custody on a valid order of remand. The Detaining Authority self-satisfied himself with regard to this and also relied on the letter of the Special Public Prosecutor dated 09.04.2007 while passing the order; under such circumstances, it cannot be construed that all the materials running to 513 pages were taken into consideration only on 09.04.2007 to arrive at the subjective satisfaction. We are of the view that the Detaining Authority had sufficient time to peruse the entire materials, prepare the grounds and to pass the detention order.
6. By pointing out that the detenu, on arrest, was remanded to judicial custody till 05.04.2007, learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that though it has been claimed that such remand has been extended till 19.04.2007 on production of, the detenu through Video Conferencing System, the remand extension order passed in that regard was not available before the Detaining authority at the time of passing the detention order except a letter written by the Special Public Prosecutor which contains the information about the extension of remand. Thus, according to the learned Counsel, in the absence of a valid remand extension order before him, the Detaining Authority, merely on the basis of extraneous and invalid materials, satisfied himself about the remand of the detenu; that being so, the ultimate order of detention has no basis to stand. In this regard, among other case laws, he specifically pressed into service the one reported in 2003 (1) MWN Crl. 288 (Abdul Alim v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors.) and the Judgment rendered by a Full Bench of this Court in HCP Nos. 1633 and 1152 of 2001, dated 11.04.2002.
Answering the above contention, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, by stating that the detenu filed Bail Application before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate; and that, during pendency of the same, counter affidavit has been filed by the Sponsoring Authority on 09.04.2007, pleading that the detenu should not be enlarged on bail on various grounds; would submit that the said counter affidavit filed by the prosecution coupled with the letter of the Special Public Prosecutor, containing the particulars about the order of extension of remand passed by the learned Magistrate on production of the accused/detenu through Video Conferencing System, was rightly taken into consideration by the Detaining Authority to arrive at the conclusion that the detenu is already in custody, since after all, the Detaining Authority must be informed about the judicial custody of the detenu in prison subsequent to valid order of remand, for invoking the order of preventive detention. In such circumstances, the Detaining Authority is not at fault in relying on the aforesaid two documents and the order of detention is very much valid.
6-A. The basic requirement is that the Detaining Authority, at the time of clamping the order of detention, must be aware of the fact that the detenu is already in judicial custody. Series of relevant documents viz., those relating to registration of case against the detenu, search and seizure, arrest, remand, confinement in prison, arrest intimation to relatives, filing of bail application and counter filed thereon before the* learned Magistrate, have all been made available before the Detaining Authority. Original remand has been duly extended on the detenu through Video Conferencing System. It is not the contention on behalf of the detenu that wrong or contrary materials have been placed before the Detaining Authority. The Special Public Prosecutor is an officer of Court. Mhen a counter filed by him is considered as a relevant document, a letter written by him, conveying the existing fact of extension of remand, can be treated as a document to come to a subjective satisfaction with regard to extension of remand and the detaining authority cannot be found fault with in relying upon the same. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, in support of his contention, placed strong reliance on the decisions reported in AIR 1989 SC 1803 (Mehboob Khan v. Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad) and 1990 Crl. Law Journal 1311 (Vashisht Narain Kanvaria v. State of Uttar Pradesh) we may straight away state that those case laws relied on by the learned Counsel cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. In the case on hand, barring the letter of the Special Public Prosecutor, which is categorised as an extraneous material, indicating extension of remand, the order of detention reflects that the Detaining Authority had knowledge of the detenu being in remand from the affidavit of the Sponsoring Authority before the Magistrate Court, opposing the bail application. In this regard, it is of much relevance to refer to the Division Bench decision of this Court reported in 1994-2-L.W. (Crl.) 618 (Irudhi @ Irudayanathan and Anr. v. Sate of Tamil Nadu etc. and Anr.), wherein, the Bench, after taking note of the observations of the Apex Court in Abdul Star Ibrahim Manik’s case AIR 1991 SC 2261, observed as follows:
12. …We have no hesitation in holding, that awareness of the detaining authority about the fact of remand need not have to be based, only on the remand order, for such awareness can arise out of a remand warrant or the affidavit of the Sponsoring Authority or similar such material affirming the basics fact of remand of the detenu concerned, on the day when the impugned order of detention stood passed….
In the light of the above proposition, the ground raised by the learned Counsel has to be rejected.
7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner by specifically stating that any material that would come into existence after passing of the order of detention must be brought to the notice of the Advisory Board, would argue that in the instant case, on conclusion of the investigation by the Sponsoring Authority, complaint has been filed before the learned Magistrate, copy of which finds place at page No. 455 of the Booklet supplied to the detenu, however, the same has not been placed before the Advisory Board in the Board Meeting held on 07.06.2007. Had the complaint been placed at the meeting, it would have influenced the mind of the Advisory Board. Thus, such procedural irregularity, being a serious one, it would adversely affect the order of detention.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor replied by stating that such complaint has been filed based on the materials available and copies thereof have also been supplied to the detenu and when the very same materials found repeated in the complaint, non-placement of the complaint before the Advisory Board will not vitiate the detention order.
7-A. The fact remains that such complaint has been filed, after detention, on conclusion of the investigation. The complaint is not a relied on document, however, since the same was available without suppression, it was supplied to the detenu. The test before the Advisory Board is with regard to correctness of the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority and to see whether there is any violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. The complaint is not a refer-report. It is like a charge-sheet filed on conclusion of investigation. If it is a negative report, the Board, can come to a different conclusion. Therefore, we are of the considered view that non-placement of the complaint will not vitiate the order of detention.
8. By adverting to the fact that the export of stainless steel sheets/coil was during the period 2005-2007, and that the order of detention was passed on 09.04.2007; it is vehemently contended by the learned Counsel that there is no nexus between the alleged acts committed by the detenu and the order of detention and, in such circumstances, the detention order has to be quashed. To substantiate his contention, the learned Counsel relied on the decisions reported in 2006 (2) SCC Crl. 418 (Rajinder Arora v. Union of India and Ors.); 1999 Crl. L.J. 3488 (Ahamed Mohaideen Zabbar v. State of Tamil Nadu) and 1990 SCC (Cri) 96 (Anand Prakash v. Sate of U.P. and Ors.)
With reference to the same, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the detenu imported stainless steel during 2005-2007 and as per OEEC (Duty Exemption Entitlement Certificate) Scheme, after import of the materials, within a period of two years, materials must be converted into utensils/manufactured items and those manufactured, materials must be exported and for which no duty will be levied. That being the case, though 1898.903 MTs of stainless steel have been imported by the detenu, without undertaking any manufacture as required to be done on his part, he clandestinely diverted 1771.232 MTs in the open market during 2006-2007. On the basis of specific intelligence received, search of the premises of the detenu was conducted on 01.03.2007. Till this date the detenu was continuously committing the offence. At that time, only 112 MTs of stainless steel was found in the premises; 15 MTs of the Stainless steel alone has been converted into stainless steel and exported and interestingly, those exported goods too proved to be of sub-standard grade. After such search, summons were issued for appearance and consequent thereto, the detenu appeared on 22/03/2007 and 23/03/2007 and his statement was recorded. It came to surface that major portion of the steel has been diverted to one siddharth Sales Agencies and one Lalith Kumar Jain of the said Agency was examined and his statement was recorded on 01.03.2007 and 02.03.2007. The stainless steel sheets/coils have been imported on DEEC Scheme and since the detenu diverted the same to third parties in flagrant violation of the scheme, the third party paid customs duty to the tune of Rs. 1 crore at the time of interrogation. In such circumstances, the sponsoring authority, without any delay, took up the investigation, effected arrest and, without any laxity or slackness, the detention order came to be passed; hence, the contention of the petitioner’s counsel that the provisions of the Act have been invoked to pass the detention order after considerable delay or there is no proximity between the alleged acts and the impugned order deserves to be rejected.
8-A. The clandestine sale of imported stainless steel in open market, without manufacturing and exporting, came to light only during March, 2007. Though raw materials were imported during 2005, 2006 and 2007, the detenu, under the Scheme, can validly export for next two years. But, the statement of the detenu and corroborative statement of witnesses and other materials show that whenever the detenu was in financial crunch, he used to sell the imported raw materials in open market. Information was received by D.R.I, during March, 2007, arrest was effected on 23.03.2007 and detention order was passed on 09.04.2007. We do not find any laxity or delay on the part of the sponsoring authority. Further, it must be highlighted that the test of proximity is not a rigid or arithmetic test by merely looking to the number of months between the alleged acts and the detention order. The observation made by the Apex Court in T.D. Abdul Rahman v. State of Kerala and Ors. AIR 1990 SC 225 is of much relevance and it is extracted below:
…The question whether the prejudicial. Activities of a person necessitating to pass an order of detention is proximate to the time when the order is made or the live-link between the prejudicial activities and the propose of detention is snapped depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. No hard and fast rule can be precisely formulated that would be applicable under all circumstances and no exhaustive guidelines can be laid down in that behalf. It follows that the text of proximity is not a rigid or mechanical test by merely counting number of months between the offending acts and the order of detention.
The prejudicial activities of the detenu in purposely, consciously and wilfully evading customs duty running to several crores of Rupees in the background of other relevant circumstances as could be seen from the grounds of detention and the materials furnished in the form of Paper Book would only compel us to reject the contention projected by the learned Counsel for the petitioner.
9. It is further contended that several materials and records have been seized from the detenu including hard discs, however, those materials under seizure have not been furnished by the prosecuting agency to the detenu. Only in the hard discs, the details relating to the exports made by the petitioner has been stored and if such materials are made available, the petitioner could have been in a better position to explain that he has not committed any offence. Further, Stainless Steel sample taken from the Factory of the detenu has been sent for analysis and, in the last line of the test report received from the National Metallurgical Laboratory, it is mentioned,
this report is issued under the conditions mentioned overleaf
Learned Counsel, pointing out the same, contended that those conditions mentioned in the overleaf have not been furnished to the Detaining Authority and the same has been wilfully suppressed. According to him, withholding of incriminating materials relied on by the Detaining Authority would vitiate the detention order. In support of his contention, he pressed into service the decisions reported in 2007 (1) MLJ (Cri) 1041 (Farzana Haji Sumar v. State. of Tamil Nadu); 2005 Crl. L.J. 738 (Seematti v. Secretary, Govt. of Tamil Nadu, Home Department); 2003 (1) Supreme (Cr.) 47 (Felix @ Okochi v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Ors.); 2002 SCC (Cri) 648 (V.C. Mohan. v. Union of India and Ors.); AIR 1999 SC 3051 (Sophia Gulam Mohd. Bham v. State of Maharashtra), etc.
Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that it is true that computer hard discs were recovered during the course of search by the Investigating Agency, however, export particulars were not contained in the disc and therefore were not relied on by the Detaining Authority. He further submits that admittedly major portion of the imported goods have been sold in open market and only a small portion manufactured is alleged to have been exported. Further, virtually, no export has been made by the detenu and a major portion of the imported goods have been sold to one Lalith Kumar Jain and statement recorded from him is sufficient for such purpose. Other contemporaneous materials are also available to substantiate such particulars. In such circumstances, since the contents of the computer hard discs were not relied upon, non-supply of the same would not vitiate the detention order. As regards the test report, again, it is submitted that the Detaining Authority has relied on the same to substantiate that imported steel was not utilised for manufacture by the detenu.
9-A. On perusal of contemporaneous materials, it appears that major portion of the imported steel has been sold in open market and the customs duty violation in this regard is more than rupees five crores. The purchaser has paid customs duty for Rs. 1 crore. No valid documents or vouchers are available for export of utensils manufactured from the imported steel. The Hard discs does not contain any valid material and the same have not been relied on. Moreover, the test report of chemical analyst was relied upon only to substantiate that imported steel was not utilised for manufacture. The test conducted under certain laboratory conditions is immaterial and the detenu cannot ask for materials which was not relied on by the detaining authority on hypothetical basis. Inasmuch no prejudice is shown to have been caused to the detenu in this regard, the contention of the counsel for the petitioner does not merit acceptance, (vide-1989 (1) SCC 250 (Haridas Amarehand Shah v. K.L. Verma).
10. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that some of the statements recorded by the witnesses were relied on and copies of the same were supplied to the detenu and one such statement is by a witness by name R. Rajesh and the same has been supplied and finds place at Page Nos. 381 to 385 of the Paper Book. Since the same is illegible and not readable, non-supply of a legible copy will vitiate the detention order.
Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that a careful scrutiny of the said document would show that one can read and understand the same without any difficulty and moreover, the contents thereof is a repetition of the statement of other witnesses and no new facts have been spoken to therein, however, the said statement has been furnished only as a corroborative piece.
10-A. On a perusal of the statement of R. Rajesh, we find that the same is readable and that in his statement, the same facts as spoken to by the other witnesses are repeated. Therefore, we find that no prejudice has been caused to the detenu.
11. It is ultimately contended that the Detaining Authority has relied on remand application and in which materials relating to a company by name Charminar Exports has been mentioned. Inasmuch as extraneous consideration has influenced the mind of the Detaining Authority, the detention order is liable to be quashed. In support of his contention, learned Counsel relied on the decisions reported in AIR 1989 SC 1803 & 1990 Crl. L.J. 1311 (cited supra).
Per contra, it is submitted on behalf of the State that certain materials have been stated in the Remand Application of the Sponsoring authority and a passing reference has been made about the company ie., M/s. Charminar Exports with which the detenu was having business transactions. Materials pertaining to the said company have neither been relied on nor referred to in the grounds of detention to arrive at the subjective “satisfaction. Therefore, no external consideration influenced the detaining authority.
11-A. We have considered the rival contentions. Remand Application is a document filed before the Court of Magistrate to secure an order of remand to a judicial custody. The application will contain the reasons while requesting for such a remand. The copy of the remand application has been furnished to the detaining authority only to satisfy that the detenu is already on valid order of remand. It is immaterial for the detaining authority to go Into the reasonings mentioned in the application. On perusal of the ground of detention, it appears no reference has been made by the detaining authority about the Company by name M/s Charminar Exports. Under such circumstances, we are of the view that no extraneous materials Influenced the mind of the detaining authority while forming subjective satisfaction.
12. Having rejected all the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and finding no valid ground for interference, we hold that the order of detention, dated 09.04.2007, passed by the first respondent/ Detaining Authority as against detenu Shanthilal S. Jain is valid in law. Consequently, the Habeas Corpus Petition fails and the same is dismissed.